Christopher Ramsey, Natasha Randolph, Kyndee Venable, and Aubrey Venable v. Crickett Miller, Pat Deen, George Conley, Craig Peacock, Larry Walden, and Steve Dugan

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 25, 2023
• Docket: 02-22-00412-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00412-CV ___________________________

CHRISTOPHER RAMSEY, NATASHA RANDOLPH, KYNDEE VENABLE, AND AUBREY VENABLE, Appellants

V.

CRICKETT MILLER, PAT DEEN, GEORGE CONLEY, CRAIG PEACOCK, LARRY WALDEN, AND STEVE DUGAN, Appellees

On Appeal from the 43rd District Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV22-0923

Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION

The majority opinion in this case aptly holds that Appellants lacked legal

standing to bring their respective suit pertaining to voting integrity. In doing so, the

opinion explains that “[o]rdinarily, a citizen lacks standing to bring a lawsuit

challenging the lawfulness of governmental acts.” See Maj. Op. at 6 (citing Brown v.

Todd, 53 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tex. 2001)). The majority opinion takes a step further and

explains that “[t]his is because ‘[g]overnments cannot operate if every citizen who

concludes that a public official has abused his discretion is granted the right to come

into court and bring such official’s public acts under judicial review.’” Maj. Op. at 6

(citing Andrade v. Venable, 372 S.W.3d 134, 136–37 (Tex. 2012) (quoting Bland ISD v.

Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000))).

I concur only to discuss this policy with a little more detail. Although I, and

some of my colleagues, have legitimate concerns about the integrity and efficacy of

voting machine use in our political elections, this court cannot grant Appellants

something that the law does not allow. It is important to point out that we are not

citizens in a pure democracy. See Democracy, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)

(defining direct or pure “democracy” as one “in which the people directly make policy

and law decisions”). Instead, the United States is a republic. See Republic, Black’s Law

Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “republic” as a “system of government in which

the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who exercise that power”).

Unlike pure democracies, such as those in Ancient Greece, where every dictate of the

2 government was ratified by the majority of the citizenry, a republican form of

government is one in which representatives, chosen by the people, decide the majority

of governmental policies. See id. Why do we have a republic in the United States? In

large part because pure democracies are wholly inefficient. If the people are allowed

to congregate, convene, and formally complain any time the government needs to

change a policy in a state with a large polity, government becomes slow, inefficient,

and cumbersome. See Andrade v. Venable, 372 S.W.3d 134, 136–37 (Tex. 2012); see also

THE FEDERALIST NO. 10 (James Madison) (highlighting various advantages of

republican governance over pure democracy). Essentially, a state that allows the

citizenry to sue any time the citizenry does not like what the government is or is not

doing is a government that is tantamount to a pure democracy and is one in which

gridlock often ensues.

As it is sometimes said, elections have consequences. Those consequences

typically manifest in the policies created by those in power. Although Appellants

cannot sue the government because they do not like the policies created by their

elections administrators, they do have recourse at the ballot box. See Luther v. Borden,

48 U.S. 1, 55 (1849) (“If it be asked what redress have the people, if wronged in these

matters, unless by resorting to the judiciary, the answer is, they have the same as in all

other political matters. In those, they go to the ballot-boxes, to the legislature or

executive, for the redress of such grievances as are within the jurisdiction of

each . . . .”). And no matter how much I, or my colleagues, may sympathize with

3 Appellants, we cannot, as jurists, legislate legal standing into existence for them.

Accordingly, I respectfully concur.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Delivered: May 25, 2023