Saturday, September 14, 2024
A final verdict in the Roberta Zamarron/Hood County Republican Party trial was officially reached Aug. 21, with visiting Judge Graham Quisenberry ruling in favor of the HCRP’s nomination process for district clerk.
CASE BACKGROUND
Zamarron, Hood County’s current interim district clerk, along with some members of the executive committee, recently sued the HCRP and its Chair Greg Harrell, alleging violations of party bylaws, self- appointment doctrine, and election laws during the district clerk nomination earlier this summer.
According to Zamarron, the party violated its own bylaws during its executive committee meeting on June 26 by allowing her opponent, Melanie Graft, to participate in the voting process for the district clerk nomination. The initial vote ended in a 7-7 deadlock before a re-vote resulted in Graft winning 8-6, which sparked concerns about transparency and fairness on social media.
After failure to get the matter addressed, Zamarron, along with Precinct 409 Chair Brad Yarborough, Precinct 112 Chair Robert Granger, and Precinct 404 Chair Mark Jackson hired an attorney and officially filed the lawsuit earlier this month.
The heart of the dispute involves Graft’s dual role as a precinct chair and a candidate for district clerk. Zamarron contended that allowing Graft to vote while she was also a candidate constituted a conflict of interest and breached the HCRP’s rules, which prohibit individuals holding elected public offices from participating in such votes.
Zamarron’s lawsuit also stated that Graft’s participation in the voting process was illegal under Texas Election Code 161.005, which prohibits individuals from serving as both an officer of a political party and a candidate for an elective office. It also cites the self-appointment doctrine, which disallows a body from appointing one of its own members to a position.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
The case was presented on three grounds: election code, the self-appointment doctrine and a violation of the (HCRP) bylaws. Although the self-appointment doctrine was briefly mentioned, the focus was primarily on the alleged violation of the HCRP bylaws.
As the trial began, a range of legal arguments and testimonies were put forward. Attorney Ryan Taylor, representing Zamarron and above-mentioned precinct chairs, contested the legitimacy of Graft’s vote, citing the Texas Election Code and local bylaws. Taylor argued that if Graft’s vote was deemed illegal, Zamarron should be declared the winner, as the initial tied vote of 7-7 would have been 7-6 in Zamarron’s favor.
Attorney Eric Opiela, representing the HCRP and Harrell, countered that even excluding Graft’s vote, she would still be the nominee due to a majority vote. He stated that Graft did not cast an illegal vote and that the only place a court can declare result is in an election contest.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
Harrell was called as the first witness, with Taylor questioning him about the party's proposed bylaws for 2024-2025 and whether they comply with Texas law. Harrell confirmed that under the bylaws, the county chair must be a Republican, aligning with Election Code stipulations that one must vote in the Republican primary to be considered affiliated with the party.
Taylor also addressed the process of nominating candidates and whether Graft's participation in voting was appropriate. Harrell admitted he did not consult the party’s parliamentarian, Dave Eagle, about Graft’s eligibility to vote. Harrell acknowledged that although other precinct chairs had asked for additional time to thoroughly vet the candidates, vetting did not occur before the election. When asked if it was fair for Graft to vote while being a candidate, Harrell maintained that he believed the process was executed fairly, emphasizing that his role was to manage the procedure rather than to make decisions about fairness.
Further questioning revealed that Graft was viewed as a capable political candidate by some party members, though Harrell acknowledged that politics played a significant role in her nomination. He defended the decision to proceed quickly with the vote, citing the need to resolve divisions within the party and ensure timely placement of a candidate on the ballot.
According to Zamarron’s lawsuit, members of the executive committee attempted to work with Harrell to rectify the errors and illegality in the candidate nomination and voting process. Unable to obtain any response from Harrell, Yarborough made a written request for Harrell to take action to remedy the matter. However, the lawsuit states Harrell did not respond or take any further action.
When Taylor asked Harrell about the communication, Harrell clarified that he forwarded Yarborough’s letter — full of statutory references — to the Republican Party of Texas and the Secretary of State, despite not responding directly.
Harrell also disputed the claim that Graft’s absence from voting would have resulted in her prevailing, maintaining that the vote count would not have changed.
During the defense questioning, Harrell admitted he had not received any prior objections to Graft participating in the vote and only became aware of concerns through a letter from Yarborough after the meeting.
Opiela also inquired about the voting rules, particularly whether a runoff was required in case of a tie. Harrell explained that Graft’s vote, if excluded, would not have altered the final tally, affirming that she would still have prevailed.
Opiela also asked if Graft’s role as a precinct chair, considered a public office, should have disqualified her from voting. Harrell responded that Graft’s role ended when she was nominated, thus making her vote valid.
Yarborough also testified he had raised concerns to Harrell about Graft’s eligibility to vote in the district clerk nomination process, but he did not object to the matter until he sent an email to Harrell nearly a month later. He also stated that he did not believe the process was fair.
Jackson testified he thought the voting process was “hastily called” and expressed doubts about Graft’s eligibility to vote. When questioned about why he did not raise an objection at the time, Jackson explained that he had just been sworn in and chose to proceed with the process. Regarding the involvement of parliamentarian Eagle, Jackson remarked that he wouldn’t be surprised if Eagle had been behind the decision to nominate Graft, adding that the process seemed orchestrated.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
In his closing argument, Taylor asserted that the HCRP's nomination process was fundamentally flawed. He argued that the party’s bylaws, which use the broad term “public office,” should take precedence over the more specific Texas Election Code. Taylor pointed out that the bylaws could have been aligned more closely with state law but were drafted to encompass a broader range of positions, including school board trustees, who are not considered county government officials.
Taylor also contended that Graft’s vote in the initial tie-breaking round should be discarded, which would make Zamarron the winner. Taylor argued that Graft, as a school board trustee, was a "county" official and thus ineligible to vote under state law. He also claimed her nomination as a potential candidate made her ineligible.
“What happened here was wrong,” Taylor said. “If the court were to agree with Harrell, where does it end? There’s nothing to stop them from doing anything they want to. Their position is bylaws don’t matter. If they don’t matter, why is there a statute? Does state law not matter? That can’t be the law. What is the point of justice if you can’t go anywhere to find it?”
In response, Opiela defended the HCRP's nomination process, arguing that it was neither improper nor a violation of law. He contended that a school board trustee does not hold public office, and therefore, the bylaws do not need to align strictly with state law.
Opiela asserted that Graft only became ineligible to serve as a precinct chair — and to vote for the district clerk nominee — after being officially nominated. He emphasized that Graft had both the right and obligation to vote before her formal nomination.
He highlighted that according to the Texas Election Code, a person is not considered a nominee until they receive the party’s vote — a decision that falls within the party's discretion.
“What matters is what the election code says,” Opiela stated. “It makes clear that they are not considered ineligible when they’re nominated by an executive committee.”
He also argued that even if Graft’s initial vote were considered illegal, it would not have altered the final result, as the second vote clearly affirmed her nomination.
“This should have been over the night of the executive committee,” Opiela said. “The vote was held; (Graft) was the winner."
Donna Garcia Davidson, representing Graft, stated that based on her experience, the nomination process followed established procedures.
She emphasized that Graft would never engage in illegal actions and clarified that a candidate is defined as someone actively seeking election. Davidson argued that since Graft was officially a candidate only after receiving a majority vote, there was no illegal vote to be dismissed.
FINAL RULING
Upon hearing testimony from both sides, Judge Quisenberry expressed appreciation for the detailed arguments and acknowledged the importance of having comprehensive information with which to make an informed decision. He recognized the case was inherently political, stating that the “very nature of being political is what got us here today.”
Quisenberry emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of the elected judiciary and stated that the same principles apply to the position of district clerk.
“I believe in that process and up to this point, the Republican Party has supported that process. You have a win and loss whichever way this goes,” he said. “When this political process concludes that person takes an oath of office. The last thing you want me to do is make a political ruling without adhering to the oath of office.”
Quisenberry then denied Zamarron’s request, determining that while the state law supersedes local bylaws, the specific state law in question does not explicitly include school board officials as government officials. As a result, Graft’s vote was deemed legal.
“If you’re seated as a juror or a judge, you have to follow the law whether you like it or not,” Quisenberry added. “I’m called upon today to fulfill my oath. Like my decision or not, it’s a part of public order.”
Quisenberry noted that while the ruling is final, Zamarron’s legal team may still appeal before the Nov. 5 election.
