Judge reinstates Jason Corley as Lubbock County Commissioner in Precinct 2

Lubbock County politics turned another corner on Friday after a three-hour hearing resulted in the reinstatement of Commissioner Jason Corley. Senior Judge Patrick Pirtle’s ruling temporarily halts the appointment of Mark Meurer, who had been selected by County Judge Curtis Parrish earlier this month to fill what Parrish believed was a vacated seat.

According to the record, “Jason Corley will return to the dais during Monday's Lubbock County Commissioner's Court meeting after a judge on Friday blocked the appointment of Mark Meurer as commissioner of precinct 2.”

That single sentence captures the headline, but the backstory is far more complicated—and worth breaking down in clear, common-sense terms.

The Heart of the Dispute: Did Corley “Resign to Run”?

Texas has a constitutional provision often called the resign-to-run rule. It states that elected officials automatically resign if they announce or effectively become a candidate for another office while they still have one year and 30 days left in their current term.

The rule exists to keep elected officials from campaigning for higher office while still deeply entrenched in roles that require their full attention. But like many laws, the details get thorny fast.

County Judge Curtis Parrish argued that Corley had triggered this provision. Parrish pointed to:

Corley’s Nov. 12 email, which Parrish believed amounted to a candidacy because it included logos, email domain names, and a P.O. Box bearing “Corley for Congress” slogans, and

A Nov. 15 text message to former Texas Tech Chancellor and Congressman Kent Hance, which Parrish said reflected a “statement of definite intent to run for public office and the soliciting of support.”

On that basis, Parrish appointed Mark Meurer on Dec. 8 to fill what he considered a vacated seat.

Corley sharply disagreed, filing suit to block Meurer’s appointment. The Friday hearing was initially set to address Corley’s motion for a temporary injunction.

When Does a Candidate Become a Candidate?

The legal question at the center of the case is not just political—it’s technical. The Texas Constitution and the Texas Elections Code don’t always line up neatly.

Potter County Attorney Scott Brumley, representing the State of Texas after District Attorney Sunshine Stanek recused herself, leaned heavily on the Attorney General’s historical interpretations. According to Brumley, the Attorney General’s office has long held that a public announcement is what triggers the constitutional resignation clause. As he put it:

“Statute cannot limit the constitution.”

“Judge Parrish did not have authority to declare that Mr. Corley has resigned from office. The appropriate holder of office should be Jason Corley.”

Brumley also argued that the Elections Code does not explicitly define what it means to “become a candidate” for purposes of the constitutional provision.

Meurer’s attorney, Kristen Vander-Plas Lafreniere, countered that other parts of the Elections Code—including definitions of a “candidate in fact”—should be applied to this situation, and that Corley’s November communications could fall under those definitions. As she summarized:

“We are arguing what the state code says: There are two ways to become a candidate. You can announce or you can become a candidate in fact.”

She also emphasized Corley's private conversations where he acknowledged an intent to run—suggesting the rule could be triggered even before public declarations.

A Procedural Twist Mid-Hearing

In an unusual move, Friday’s hearing turned a corner on a procedural issue: who even had the right to bring a lawsuit over a potential automatic resignation?

Vander-Plas Lafreniere argued that only the State of Texas has standing to challenge the removal of an elected official. Though Judge Pirtle initially denied her motion to dismiss Corley as a plaintiff, he reversed course after she informed the court that she had filed an appeal—which would have paused the case entirely.

Instead, Pirtle removed Corley as a plaintiff and substituted the State of Texas as the party moving the case forward—a significant procedural shift.

What the Ruling Means Right Now

The immediate outcome is simple: Corley returns to his seat for now, pending a full trial on the case’s merits.

Judge Pirtle emphasized that this is not the final word, saying he will coordinate with all parties to set a schedule for the full case.

Meanwhile, Vander-Plas Lafreniere has already stated she will appeal the ruling, setting up what could be a multi-layered legal battle.

Common-Sense Takeaways

This is far from over.

Friday’s ruling is temporary. The real question—whether Corley legally triggered automatic resignation—remains undecided.

Texas’ resign-to-run rules are unclear in edge cases.

The lack of case law means judges are navigating a gray zone of constitutional language, Elections Code definitions, and Attorney General opinions.

Intent matters, but so does publicity.

The case may hinge on whether private communications showing intent can legally count as becoming a candidate—or whether only a public announcement triggers the rule.

Local government stability is in flux.

Residents of Precinct 2 are watching legal maneuvering determine who represents them, rather than an election or simple administrative process.

Expect appeals and possibly months of legal wrangling.

Both sides clearly believe the legal principles at stake go beyond this one seat.