In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-24-00091-CV __________________
IN RE DUKE W. COON
AND
NO. 09-24-00093-CV __________________
IN RE SHANA R. ARTHUR
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceedings Montgomery County, Texas __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In separate mandamus petitions, Duke W. Coon (Coon) and Shana R. Arthur
(Arthur) ask this Court to compel the Respondent, Soco M. Gorjón (Gorjón), in her
capacity as the City Secretary of the City of Conroe Texas, to reject applications to
appear on the ballot filed by Real Parties in Interest Bobby Todd Yancey (Yancey)
1 and Curt L. Maddux (Maddux). The mandamus record establishes that on January
17, 2024, Gorjón accepted Yancey’s and Maddux’s applications for a place on the
ballot in the May 4, 2024 General Election for the City of Conroe. Coon and Arthur
assert that Gorjón accepted the applications, but she should have rejected the
applications when each application was received by Gorjón. They ask this Court to
compel her to now reject the applications as a duty imposed by law in connection
with the holding of the election. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 273.061-.063; see also
Tex. R. App. P. 52. We deny the petitions for a writ of mandamus.
Background
Yancey and Maddux are currently serving as councilmen on the City Council
for the City of Conroe. Both Yancey and Maddux have submitted applications for a
place on the May 2024 general election ballot. Yancey has submitted an application
to appear on the ballot for the position of Mayor, while Maddux has submitted his
application to appear on the ballot for re-election to his current position for place 2
on the City Council. The filing period for the May 2024 election commenced on
January 17, 2024, and concluded on February 16, 2024. According to Coon, on
January 17, 2024, Gorjón retrieved Yancey’s application from his desk at the City’s
offices. Coon contends that Yancey left the field for “occupation” blank but
Yancey’s signature was on the application when it was retrieved from his desk. That
said Coon contends that the notary’s signature and stamp were absent at that time.
2 According to Arthur, on January 17, 2024, Gorjón also retrieved Maddux’s
application from his desk at the City’s offices, and when she did so Maddux’s
signature was on the application, but the notary’s signature and stamp were absent.
Coon and Arthur contend that the City Secretary gave Yancey’s and Maddux’s
applications to a notary public in the City’s office and the notary then notarized the
applications and signatures for Yancey and Maddux.
A copy of the application filed by Yancey and Maddux appears in the
mandamus appendix for each mandamus petition. Yancey’s and Maddux’s
application each bear the signature of an Official Authorized to Administer Oath and
each is stamped with a seal as a Notary Public for the State of Texas. The
applications are dated January 17, 2024, are signed by the candidates, and bear
Gorjón’s signature with a notation that each was received at 8:00 am on January 17,
2024, and accepted by Gorjón that same day. The field for date of birth and
occupation are blank on Yancey’s application. Yancey’s application states a length
of continuous residence in Texas of 64 years, 6 months and states Yancey has lived
in the territory for which the office is sought for 7 years, 6 months. The field for date
of birth is blank on Maddux’s application, but his occupation is listed as being
employed by Conroe Golf Cars. Maddux’s application states a length of continuous
residence in Texas of 55 years, 6 months and states Maddux has lived in the territory
for which the office is sought for 48 years, 6 months.
3 Coon and Arthur do not argue that Yancey and Maddux failed to sign the
applications, nor do they contend that either signature has been forged. Additionally,
they do not argue that either Coon or Arthur is unqualified by residency, or age to
serve on the City Council. Rather, they argue Gorjón should have rejected the
applications because Maddux and Yancey affixed their signatures to the applications
on a date before January 17, 2024, and they were not physically present when the
notary affixed her signature and seal to the applications. Consequently, Coon and
Arthur argue, Yancey and Maddux actually failed to swear to the information in the
application and failed to swear to their oaths in the application wherein they promise
to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas. Coon argues
that in addition to failing to swear an oath to uphold the Constitutions, Yancey failed
to comply with the requirements of the Election Code when he left blank the section
on the application requiring him to identify his occupation. Coon and Arthur argue
that under the Election Code Gorjón had a ministerial duty to reject the applications
because these defects rendered the applications invalid. On January 17, 2024, Gorjón
accepted both applications. However, after the filing deadline had closed, a request
was made for Gorjón to reject the applications. Coon and Arthur contend they did
not know about the irregularities in question until March 2024, which they admit
was after the filing deadline had closed. Relators ask this Court to compel Gorjón to
now reject the applications.
4 Mandamus Review
Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear
abuse of discretion for which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
A court of appeals “may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of any
duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of an election or a political party
convention, regardless of whether the person responsible for performing the duty is
a public officer.” Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 273.061(a).
That said, the Texas Supreme Court has “long and consistently held, ‘[t]he
public interest is best served when public offices are decided by fair and vigorous
elections, not technicalities leading to default.’” In re Walker, No. 24-0016, 2024
Tex. LEXIS 17, *1 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Francis, 186
S.W.3d 534, 542 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding)). “[P]rovisions that restrict the right
to hold office must be strictly construed against ineligibility.” Id. at *3 (quoting
Francis, 186 S.W.3d at 542 & n.34 and citing In re Green Party of Tex., 630 S.W.3d
36, 39 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding)). Mandamus is not issued as a matter of right.
Id. Even if a candidate’s application may have some deficiencies, an opposing
candidate is not entitled to mandamus relief when the opposing candidate’s claims
require factual determinations. See In re Angelini, 186 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. 2006)
(orig. proceeding).
5 Coon states “there is no dispute that Councilman Yancey signed the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-24-00091-CV __________________
IN RE DUKE W. COON
AND
NO. 09-24-00093-CV __________________
IN RE SHANA R. ARTHUR
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceedings Montgomery County, Texas __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In separate mandamus petitions, Duke W. Coon (Coon) and Shana R. Arthur
(Arthur) ask this Court to compel the Respondent, Soco M. Gorjón (Gorjón), in her
capacity as the City Secretary of the City of Conroe Texas, to reject applications to
appear on the ballot filed by Real Parties in Interest Bobby Todd Yancey (Yancey)
1 and Curt L. Maddux (Maddux). The mandamus record establishes that on January
17, 2024, Gorjón accepted Yancey’s and Maddux’s applications for a place on the
ballot in the May 4, 2024 General Election for the City of Conroe. Coon and Arthur
assert that Gorjón accepted the applications, but she should have rejected the
applications when each application was received by Gorjón. They ask this Court to
compel her to now reject the applications as a duty imposed by law in connection
with the holding of the election. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 273.061-.063; see also
Tex. R. App. P. 52. We deny the petitions for a writ of mandamus.
Background
Yancey and Maddux are currently serving as councilmen on the City Council
for the City of Conroe. Both Yancey and Maddux have submitted applications for a
place on the May 2024 general election ballot. Yancey has submitted an application
to appear on the ballot for the position of Mayor, while Maddux has submitted his
application to appear on the ballot for re-election to his current position for place 2
on the City Council. The filing period for the May 2024 election commenced on
January 17, 2024, and concluded on February 16, 2024. According to Coon, on
January 17, 2024, Gorjón retrieved Yancey’s application from his desk at the City’s
offices. Coon contends that Yancey left the field for “occupation” blank but
Yancey’s signature was on the application when it was retrieved from his desk. That
said Coon contends that the notary’s signature and stamp were absent at that time.
2 According to Arthur, on January 17, 2024, Gorjón also retrieved Maddux’s
application from his desk at the City’s offices, and when she did so Maddux’s
signature was on the application, but the notary’s signature and stamp were absent.
Coon and Arthur contend that the City Secretary gave Yancey’s and Maddux’s
applications to a notary public in the City’s office and the notary then notarized the
applications and signatures for Yancey and Maddux.
A copy of the application filed by Yancey and Maddux appears in the
mandamus appendix for each mandamus petition. Yancey’s and Maddux’s
application each bear the signature of an Official Authorized to Administer Oath and
each is stamped with a seal as a Notary Public for the State of Texas. The
applications are dated January 17, 2024, are signed by the candidates, and bear
Gorjón’s signature with a notation that each was received at 8:00 am on January 17,
2024, and accepted by Gorjón that same day. The field for date of birth and
occupation are blank on Yancey’s application. Yancey’s application states a length
of continuous residence in Texas of 64 years, 6 months and states Yancey has lived
in the territory for which the office is sought for 7 years, 6 months. The field for date
of birth is blank on Maddux’s application, but his occupation is listed as being
employed by Conroe Golf Cars. Maddux’s application states a length of continuous
residence in Texas of 55 years, 6 months and states Maddux has lived in the territory
for which the office is sought for 48 years, 6 months.
3 Coon and Arthur do not argue that Yancey and Maddux failed to sign the
applications, nor do they contend that either signature has been forged. Additionally,
they do not argue that either Coon or Arthur is unqualified by residency, or age to
serve on the City Council. Rather, they argue Gorjón should have rejected the
applications because Maddux and Yancey affixed their signatures to the applications
on a date before January 17, 2024, and they were not physically present when the
notary affixed her signature and seal to the applications. Consequently, Coon and
Arthur argue, Yancey and Maddux actually failed to swear to the information in the
application and failed to swear to their oaths in the application wherein they promise
to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas. Coon argues
that in addition to failing to swear an oath to uphold the Constitutions, Yancey failed
to comply with the requirements of the Election Code when he left blank the section
on the application requiring him to identify his occupation. Coon and Arthur argue
that under the Election Code Gorjón had a ministerial duty to reject the applications
because these defects rendered the applications invalid. On January 17, 2024, Gorjón
accepted both applications. However, after the filing deadline had closed, a request
was made for Gorjón to reject the applications. Coon and Arthur contend they did
not know about the irregularities in question until March 2024, which they admit
was after the filing deadline had closed. Relators ask this Court to compel Gorjón to
now reject the applications.
4 Mandamus Review
Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear
abuse of discretion for which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
A court of appeals “may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of any
duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of an election or a political party
convention, regardless of whether the person responsible for performing the duty is
a public officer.” Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 273.061(a).
That said, the Texas Supreme Court has “long and consistently held, ‘[t]he
public interest is best served when public offices are decided by fair and vigorous
elections, not technicalities leading to default.’” In re Walker, No. 24-0016, 2024
Tex. LEXIS 17, *1 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Francis, 186
S.W.3d 534, 542 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding)). “[P]rovisions that restrict the right
to hold office must be strictly construed against ineligibility.” Id. at *3 (quoting
Francis, 186 S.W.3d at 542 & n.34 and citing In re Green Party of Tex., 630 S.W.3d
36, 39 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding)). Mandamus is not issued as a matter of right.
Id. Even if a candidate’s application may have some deficiencies, an opposing
candidate is not entitled to mandamus relief when the opposing candidate’s claims
require factual determinations. See In re Angelini, 186 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. 2006)
(orig. proceeding).
5 Coon states “there is no dispute that Councilman Yancey signed the
application,” then Coon argues Yancey did not swear to the application because he
was not physically present when the notary affixed her signature and seal to the
application. Coon asserts that Yancey falsely stated how long he had lived in Texas
and Conroe because he signed it before the date it was submitted, and he falsely
stated that he had sworn to uphold the constitutions and laws of the United States
and Texas because he did not swear to the oath in the presence of the notary at the
time the notary affixed her seal. Coon argues it was not possible for Gorjón to accept
Yancey’s application on January 17, 2024, because the application was never sworn
to by Yancey, and Gorjón later admitted she was aware that the candidate’s signature
and the notary’s signature and seal were not contemporaneously affixed to the
application. He argues this Court must compel Gorjón to now reject Yancey’s
application and remove Yancey from the ballot because Gorjón should not have
accepted an application she knew was deficient and that had not been sworn to in
the presence of the notary.
Likewise, Arthur states, “there is no dispute that Councilman Maddux signed
the application,” then Arthur alleges Maddux did not swear to the application
because he was not physically present when the notary affixed her signature and seal
to the application. Arthur makes similar arguments as Coon. Arthur argues it was
not possible for Gorjón to accept Maddux’s application on January 17, 2024, because
6 the application was never properly sworn to by Maddux, and as Gorjón later
admitted to the press, she was aware that the candidate’s signature and the notary’s
signature and seal were not contemporaneously affixed to the application at the time
and date when Maddux signed it.
We conclude that the alleged complaints outlined in the mandamus petitions
require factual determinations and Coon and Arthur have not shown that mandamus
relief is warranted at this time. We deny Coon’s and Arthur’s petitions for writ of
mandamus without prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). We also deny all pending
motions for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10.
PETITIONS DENIED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on March 15, 2024 Opinion Delivered March 15, 2024
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.