In Re Staci Williams Appeal from 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Denied and Opinion Filed January 26, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00068-CV IN RE STACI WILLIAMS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18-00641 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Francis In this original proceeding, relator Staci Williams sought relief from a temporary restraining order requiring Carol Donovan, Chair of the Dallas County Democratic Party (DCDP), and the DCDP to remove Williams from the March 2018 Democratic Primary Ballot as a candidate for the office of Judge of the 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County. On January 24, 2018, the Court conditionally granted relator’s petition for writ of mandamus by written opinion and ordered the trial court to vacate the temporary restraining order. We determined that the proceeding in the district court was moot as to the primary election ballot at the time it was heard, and the resulting order was void. After the opinion issued, the real parties in interest Michael G. “Mike” Lee and the Dallas County Republican Party (DCRP) filed a “Cross-Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” In their crosspetition, Lee and DCRP seek a writ of mandamus directing Donovan and the DCDP to reject Williams’s application to be on the primary ballot. That relief is unavailable because overseas and military ballots have already been printed and mailed for the March primary. See In re Meyer, No. 05-16-00063-CV, 2016 WL 375033, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 1, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mandamus requesting same relief as cross-relators denied when filed six days after overseas ballots mailed). Accordingly, we deny the cross-petition for writ of mandamus. The Court will not entertain motions for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE 180068F.P05 –2–

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.