Appeals court keeps Lubbock County Commissioner Jason Corley in office — for now

After a fast-moving and unusual series of legal maneuvers, an appeals court on Monday morning left in place a ruling that keeps Jason Corley in office as Lubbock County Commissioner for Precinct 2. Mark Meurer, who had been sworn in just hours after Corley was declared “automatically resigned,” remains out.

The appeals court’s decision was brief and to the point. In a single sentence, the clerk’s office said:

“By order of the court, the relator’s motion for temporary relief and stay is denied.”

That denial meant the temporary ruling issued Friday by visiting Judge Patrick Pirtle stood heading into the Commissioners Court meeting that began at 10 a.m. Monday. Corley stayed seated. Meurer did not return.

This fight isn’t over, but the immediate question—who sits in the chair right now—was answered.

How This Started

On December 8, County Judge Curtis Parrish announced that Jason Corley had automatically resigned his seat under state law by running for Congress with more than one year and 30 days left in his term.

Corley disputed that conclusion, saying he had only formed an exploratory committee and had not officially become a candidate at that point.

Less than two hours after telling Corley to clean out his office, Parrish administered the oath of office to Mark Meurer as Corley’s replacement.

Corley sued that same day to get his seat back.

Who Stepped Aside — and Why That Matters

Several key players removed themselves from the case:

State District Judge Les Hatch stepped aside, and retired Judge Patrick Pirtle was assigned.

District Attorney Sunshine Stanek stepped back, and Potter County Attorney Scott Brumley took over for the State of Texas.

That last move turned out to be critical. Brumley, acting on behalf of the State, filed a petition supporting Corley’s position.

Why does that matter? Because under Texas law, a special type of lawsuit called quo warranto—which challenges whether someone lawfully holds public office—can only be pursued by the state through a county attorney, district attorney, or the attorney general.

Private citizens generally can’t do it on their own.

Friday’s Hearing: Where Things Got Messy

At Friday’s hearing, Judge Pirtle first had to decide whether Corley even had the legal right to bring the case himself.

Initially, Pirtle ruled that Corley’s lawsuit could stay on the books. Meurer’s attorney, Kristen LaFreniere, immediately filed a notice of appeal from her laptop in the courtroom.

That move mattered because state law says that once that kind of appeal is filed, the case is automatically put on hold—a “stay.”

When Pirtle was informed of the appeal, he said, “I would prefer to proceed today.”

After a short recess, the judge reversed course. He withdrew his earlier ruling and decided Corley could not proceed on his own after all. Only Brumley, acting for the State of Texas, could move forward with the quo warranto case.

Pirtle said, “In light of the conundrum presented, the Court is going to withdraw its prior order. … At this time, we will proceed.”

LaFreniere objected repeatedly, arguing that once the appeal was filed, the judge had no authority to continue the hearing or undo the stay simply to move the case along. She later put those objections into writing in filings with the Seventh Court of Appeals, asking the court to step in before Monday morning.

The appeals court declined to do so.

What Was Actually Argued in Court

During the hearing, Brumley called Judge Parrish to testify.

Parrish said he believed Corley automatically resigned on November 12—the day Corley announced by email that he had formed an exploratory committee. That email included a “Corley for Congress” logo, email address, and a campaign P.O. box, though Corley later said the P.O. box address was sent out by mistake.

Parrish also testified that Corley texted former Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance saying, “I am running for Congress.”

When Brumley asked whether Parrish had determined Corley automatically resigned, Parrish responded, “I just announced it.”

When asked whether any court or other body had declared a vacancy before he appointed Meurer, Parrish answered, “No.”

Corley also testified. He said he only announced an exploratory committee and did not officially declare his candidacy before December 2.

Under cross-examination, Corley acknowledged telling some people he was not running for reelection as commissioner. When asked why, he said, “Eight years was long enough.”

He also acknowledged sending a private text stating, “I’m running for Congress in District 19,” and agreed that it was a statement of intent—but argued that private statements should not count under the law.

The Legal Standard Everyone Agreed On

Both sides pointed to the same case as controlling precedent: Lewis v. Drake.

That case emphasizes that challenges to whether a public official has vacated office are not minor technicalities. The decision says public officials should not have their authority questioned casually or incidentally, and that only the proper legal officers of the state should bring such challenges.

The idea is simple: government offices shouldn’t be thrown into chaos based on unilateral declarations or side disputes.

Judge Pirtle’s Ruling

From the bench, Judge Pirtle emphasized that quo warranto exists to protect the state, not individual political interests.

He referred to Corley as the “chosen agent” of the voters of Precinct 2, elected in 2018 and reelected in 2022, unless and until an automatic resignation is lawfully established.

Pirtle concluded that Brumley, acting for the State of Texas, had shown he would “likely” succeed on the merits of the case.

His order was straightforward:

Jason Corley remains in office and is the lawful holder of the Precinct 2 commissioner seat—at least for now.

The Bottom Line

This case is not about whether Jason Corley will ultimately be allowed to run for Congress, nor is it a final ruling on whether he triggered an automatic resignation.

Right now, it’s about process and authority.

No court had declared a vacancy. A judge cannot simply announce one into existence. And under Texas law, only the state—not an individual officeholder acting alone—can properly bring a quo warranto challenge.

The appeals court’s refusal to intervene before Monday’s meeting leaves Judge Pirtle’s temporary ruling in place. Corley stays. Meurer remains out.

More litigation may come. But for now, the seat belongs to the person voters elected—unless and until a court says otherwise.