rejecting reliance on Roude- bush, and construing statute giving state court ‘‘original and exclusive jurisdiction of all contests of elections, general or special, for all school, municipal, precinct, county, district, state offices, or federal offices’’ as inap- plicable to federal congressional elections because of federal elections clause
How later courts described this case
- rejecting reliance on Roude- bush, and construing statute giving state court ‘‘original and exclusive jurisdiction of all contests of elections, general or special, for all school, municipal, precinct, county, district, state offices, or federal offices’’ as inap- plicable to federal congressional elections because of federal elections clause
- indecency with a child
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REAVLEY, Justice,
dissenting.
I do not agree that Article 9.01 of the Texas Election Code is in conflict with and contrary to Article I, § 5, of the United States Constitution. There is no reason why the State of Texas may not protect and enforce its election procedures by permitting election contest actions in court— just so long as these actions do not impede an independent determination of the election result by the United States Congress. In the event Congress decides to make its own investigation and/or determination apart from the judgment of the Texas courts according to Texas statutes, Congress may do so. That possibility and the final authority of Congress do not bar Texas entirely from a role in insuring the legal outcome of its elections. This is the construction which I understand the federal courts now give to this section of the United States Constitution. Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 , 92 S.Ct. 804 , 31 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); Durkin v. Snow, 403 F.Supp. 18 (D.N.H.1974).
DENTON, J., joins in this dissent.