DFW News App

A voting sign outside of the Tarrant County Plaza Building polling station. (David Moreno | Fort Worth Report)
” data-medium-file=”https://fortworthreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DSC05994-scaled.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1″ data-large-file=”https://fortworthreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DSC05994-scaled.jpg?fit=780%2C520&ssl=1″ tabindex=”0″ role=”button”>The Tarrant County Republican Party can fill a contested precinct chair position while a legal dispute over the seat continues, after the Texas Supreme Court issued a stay order Sept. 6. The ruling, which pauses a previous emergency injunction, is the most recent development in an unprecedented battle over the rights of local political parties in the state — and whether they outweigh the rights of political candidates. It began when Tarrant County resident Chris Rector won a primary election to chair Tarrant County Republican Precinct 4230 with 75% of the vote, only to be declared ineligible by party Chairman Bo French a week later. French accused Rector of pretending to be a Republican, and refused to issue a certificate of election. In turn, Rector sued and alleged the party chair “concocted a bogus, fraudulent claim that Contestant was ineligible for the position to which he had been elected.” The ensuing legal saga spanned Tarrant County and into Amarillo and Austin. Tony McDonald, general counsel for the Tarrant County Republican Party, said the party is happy to see the Supreme Court issue the stay. Steve Maxwell, attorney for Rector, did not respond to a request for comment.“It is unfortunate that we have been required to take this matter to the Supreme Court,” McDonald wrote in a statement. “However we will fight at every level necessary to defend the First Amendment rights of Tarrant County Republicans.”Underlying legal dispute continuesRector’s lawsuit was initially filed in a Tarrant County court. Multiple local Republican judges recused themselves early in the proceedings, prompting the assignment of visiting Judge Sydney Hewlett to the case. After Hewlett denied a motion to dismiss the case under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, McDonald filed an appeal with the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth. All seven Republican justices on the court recused themselves, and the appeal was transferred to the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo. Maxwell, the attorney representing Rector, asked the appeals court to block the party from filling the precinct chair position until the legal proceedings were settled. The court’s justices granted that relief, prompting McDonald to file a petition to the Texas Supreme Court — this time, arguing that the relief violated the Tarrant County Republican Party’s First Amendment rights. In filings to the Texas Supreme Court, Maxwell switched gears and agreed with McDonald’s assertion that the emergency relief granted by the appeals court was inappropriate. Instead, he suggested, the appeals court never had the jurisdiction to hear McDonald’s appeal in the first place — and the issue should go back to the original trial court. While the Texas Supreme Court approved a stay of that emergency relief, it has yet to rule on the underlying petition filed by McDonald, which would permanently establish that the appeals court cannot block the party from filling the seat. In essence, the stay acts as a pause to preserve the status quo while the Supreme Court considers the case.The other case, over whether Hewlett erred when she denied a motion to dismiss the case under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, is also still ongoing in the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo.