What does the Law Say?

Video by CFBOutsideObserver

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. W. B. Yeats 

The Secretary of State is the chief election officer for the State of Texas. Section 31.004(a) of the Texas Election Code (the "Code") provides that, "The Secretary of State shall assist and advise all election authorities with regard to the application, operation, and interpretation of this code and of the election laws outside of this code.  

"No public record conclusively establishes residency,” correctly states the position of this office. This position is based upon Section 1.015(b) of the Texas Election Code"... Secretary of State the State of Texas.

Attorney General Opinions clarify the meaning of existing laws. They do not address matters of fact, and they are neither legislative nor judicial in nature. That is to say, they cannot create new provisions in the law or correct unintended, undesirable effects of the law.

Determining the question of residency is a question of intent and factual circumstances. It is not within the authority of this office nor within the discretion of the official receiving the application [of a candidate]{ to determine those factual questions. See Parker v. Brown, 425 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1968, no writ) (question of residence is to be judicially determined); see also Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.1964) (residence is determined by factual circumstances).

Texas State Attornery General Opinion No. JM-231 http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/47mattox/op/1984/htm/jm0231.htm

The 95th Judicial District Court of the State of Texas rendered a determination on the questions of intent and factual circumstances.

In making the important determination presented here, the Court is guided by a body of firmly fixed precedent that overlays legal challenges to candidacy and the right to hold elective office based on eligibility requirements. The higher courts have repeatedly admonished us that “any constitutional or statutory provision which restricts the right to hold public office should be strictly construed against ineligibility.” In re Carlisle, 209 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2006)(per curiam), quoting Dawkins v. Meyer, 825 S.W.2d 444, at 448 (Tex. 1992). See also Sears v. Bayoud, 786 S.W.2d 248, 251 (Tex. 1990); Brown v. Meyer, 787 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tex. 1990). It goes without the necessity of citation that this imperative is one of high constitutional importance. ... The Court, having fully considered the wealth of testimonial and documentary evidence before it, together with the arguments of counsel, hereby ORDERS...

95th Judicial District Court
Fleming V, Carollton Farmers Branch Independnt School District

Marbury v. Madison (1803) "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." —Chief Justice John Marshall

What does the law say?