Sec. 145.037. CERTIFICATION OF REPLACEMENT NOMINEE FOR PLACEMENT ON BALLOT. (a) For the name of a replacement nominee to be placed on the general election ballot, the chair of the executive committee making the replacement nomination must certify in writing the nominee's name for placement on the ballot as provided by this section.
(b) The certification must be signed and acknowledged by the chair.
(c) In addition to the name of the replacement nominee, the certification must include:
(1) the replacement nominee's residence address and mailing address, if different from the residence address;
(2) the name of the original nominee;
(3) the office sought, including any place number or other distinguishing number;
(4) the cause of the vacancy;
(5) an identification of the executive committee making the replacement nomination; and
(6) the date of the replacement nomination.
(d) The chair must deliver the certification to:
(1) the secretary of state, for a statewide or district office; or
(2) the authority responsible for having the official ballot prepared, for a county or precinct office.
(e) The certification must be delivered not later than 5 p.m. of the 71st day before election day.
(f) A certification of a replacement nominee that is delivered by mail is considered to be delivered at the time of its receipt by the appropriate authority.
(g) A replacement nominee's name may not be certified if, before delivering the certification, the certifying authority learns that the replacement nominee's name is to be omitted from the ballot under Section 145.035.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, Sec. 102, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1109 (H.B. 2339), Sec. 8, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1318 (S.B. 100), Sec. 20, eff. September 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1996–2014 · leading case:
Davis v. Taylor, 930 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. 1996).
Davis v. Taylor, 930 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. 1996).
· cites it 10× “See TEX. ELEC.CODE §§ 145.037 (providing that certification must be delivered not later than 5:00 p.”
In Re Dupont, 142 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “See Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 145.037. The dispute over whether the nominations for a replacement candidate were open or closed when the vote on Dupont was taken did not excuse Statham from performing this mandatory duty.”
In Re Richard “Opey” WATKINS, 465 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Elec. Code § 145.037. Respondent Barbara Vansa, Milam County Clerk, is responsible for accepting the certification and having the ballots prepared.”
In Re Cercone, 323 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App. 2010).
“' See Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 145.037(d). Cercone asserts that although Kazmi’s application was deficient for lack of the necessary number of signatures on her petition, there is nothing to indicate she was “ineligible” for the position under the election code.”
— Tex. Elec. Code § 145.037(a) — 2 cases
Davis v. Taylor, 930 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. 1996).
“See TEX. ELEC.CODE §§ 145.037 (providing that certification must be delivered not later than 5:00 p.”
In Re Dupont, 142 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App. 2004).
“See Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 145.037. The dispute over whether the nominations for a replacement candidate were open or closed when the vote on Dupont was taken did not excuse Statham from performing this mandatory duty.”
— Tex. Elec. Code § 145.037(c)(4) — 1 case
Davis v. Taylor, 930 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. 1996).
“See TEX. ELEC.CODE §§ 145.037 (providing that certification must be delivered not later than 5:00 p.”
— Tex. Elec. Code § 145.037(d) — 1 case
In Re Cercone, 323 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App. 2010).
“' See Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 145.037(d). Cercone asserts that although Kazmi’s application was deficient for lack of the necessary number of signatures on her petition, there is nothing to indicate she was “ineligible” for the position under the election code.”
— Tex. Elec. Code § 145.037(d)(2) — 1 case
In Re Dupont, 142 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App. 2004).
“See Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 145.037. The dispute over whether the nominations for a replacement candidate were open or closed when the vote on Dupont was taken did not excuse Statham from performing this mandatory duty.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.