Fight Over Lubbock County commissioner seat heads to Texas Supreme Court

The legal and political dispute surrounding Lubbock County’s Precinct 2 commissioner seat has extended into the new year, with multiple courts now involved and no immediate resolution in sight. What began in early December as a disagreement over whether Commissioner Jason Corley automatically resigned by declaring a congressional candidacy has evolved into a procedural battle over who has the authority to hold the office, who can challenge that authority, and how quickly courts should intervene.

At the start and end of December, Jason Corley held the Precinct 2 seat. For a brief period in the middle of the month, however, Mark Meurer was sworn in as his replacement. Meurer is now asking the Texas Supreme Court to return him to the position while his appeal moves forward, a request Corley believes is unlikely to succeed.

Meanwhile, Corley has submitted approximately $12,000 in legal fees to Lubbock County for reimbursement, following last month’s court proceedings. County commissioners are expected to consider that request later this month.

How the Dispute Began

The conflict began on December 8, when Lubbock County Judge Curtis Parrish declared Corley had automatically resigned from his position. Parrish based his decision on the Texas Constitution, which contains a “resign-to-run” provision. Under that provision, certain officeholders are considered to have resigned if they announce a candidacy for another office while having more than one year and 30 days remaining in their current term.

Parrish stated, “If you look at the constitution, it’s an automatic resignation.” He also emphasized that he did not personally remove Corley from office, saying, “I didn’t remove Jason Corley from office. In fact, you know, I had very little to do with him being removed from office. … The only thing I did – I appointed a suitable resident of the precinct because of the vacancy.”

That same morning, Parrish swore in Mark Meurer as the new Precinct 2 commissioner. Corley immediately disputed the resignation declaration and filed a lawsuit challenging the move.

Court Intervention and Conflicting Positions

Within days, the State of Texas intervened in the case on Corley’s behalf. Potter County Attorney Scott Brumley was appointed to represent the state after Lubbock County District Attorney Sunshine Stanek removed her office from the matter. Brumley filed a legal action known as a quo warranto, which is the specific legal mechanism used in Texas to challenge whether someone is lawfully holding public office.

In court filings, Brumley took a clear position, writing that Corley had not resigned and that Meurer was unlawfully occupying the seat. “Meurer is usurping, and is unlawfully holding and executing, the office of county commissioner,” Brumley wrote in mid-December.

On December 19, visiting retired Judge Patrick Pirtle held a hearing and ordered Corley restored to office. Meurer’s attorney, Kristen LaFreniere, immediately filed an appeal and requested emergency relief. Two days later, on December 22, the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo denied that emergency request. Corley then participated in a Commissioners Court meeting the same day.

Procedural Complications

Much of the current legal fight revolves less around the underlying facts and more around legal procedure. When Corley first sued, Meurer challenged the case through a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Corley did not have the legal right to bring the lawsuit. In Texas, quo warranto actions are typically brought by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a county attorney, not by an individual officeholder.

Initially, Judge Pirtle allowed Corley’s case to proceed. However, once Meurer’s attorney filed an appeal during the hearing, the case was automatically stayed under procedural rules. Pirtle then reversed course, ruling that Corley could not proceed on his own and that only the state, through Brumley, could argue the case. Brumley then presented evidence and witnesses, including Corley and Parrish, in support of Corley’s position.

Although the appeals court denied emergency relief, it did not dismiss the appeal itself. On Tuesday, the Seventh Court of Appeals also issued a notice questioning whether Meurer even has the right to file this specific type of appeal, which is usually reserved for government officials sued in their official capacity. Meurer has until January 20 to respond.

Judge Pirtle has since directed the parties to move forward with the original case in Lubbock County. In an email to the attorneys involved, he noted that the appeals court denied emergency relief and emphasized the public interest in resolving the matter quickly.

Appeal to the Texas Supreme Court

Despite the setbacks, Meurer has now turned to the Texas Supreme Court. His emergency motion argues that immediate intervention is necessary to allow him to resume his duties while the appeal continues. “Only emergency relief from this court will assist Meurer in regaining his statutory right … and allow him to stay in office pending his appeal,” the motion states.

LaFreniere also filed a petition for mandamus, asking the Supreme Court to order both the trial court and the appeals court to reverse their actions. Her filings argue that Meurer’s constitutional rights were violated and warn of broader consequences. According to the petition, the trial court’s actions “set a dangerous precedent that office holders can be removed from office without appellate remedies that are provided to them by statute.”

Another filing notes that the appeals court’s refusal to grant a stay has already caused Meurer to miss a Commissioners Court meeting. “Meurer respectfully requests this Court issues the stay before he is forced to miss more of his duties as an appointed County Commissioner,” LaFreniere wrote. The next scheduled meeting is January 12.

Corley’s Response and County Costs

Corley has expressed skepticism about Meurer’s chances at the Supreme Court level. “I doubt the Supreme Court is going to rule any differently than what the appeals court has already ruled,” he said, adding that he believes the continued litigation is “a waste of taxpayer money at this point.”

At the same time, Corley submitted $12,000 in legal bills to Lubbock County, anticipating approval from fellow commissioners. He said those commissioners were the same ones who expressed shock when he was escorted from the courthouse earlier in the dispute. Corley also expects the legal process to continue for some time, noting the Supreme Court’s workload and the limited time left in his term.

What Comes Next

As of now, no court has issued an order putting Meurer back in office. The immediate dispute before the Texas Supreme Court focuses on whether Meurer should be temporarily reinstated while appeals continue. Separately, the underlying legal questions about automatic resignation under the Texas Constitution and who has authority to challenge an officeholder’s status remain unresolved.

For Lubbock County residents, the situation underscores how constitutional provisions, procedural rules, and overlapping court jurisdictions can create uncertainty in local governance. Until higher courts provide clarity, the Precinct 2 seat remains a point of contention, with potential implications for future cases involving resign-to-run laws and judicial intervention in elected offices.