The legal fight over Lubbock County’s Precinct 2 commissioner seat has become a case study in how election law, constitutional provisions, and court procedure can collide, producing uncertainty not just for the people involved but also for the public they serve. What began as a dispute over whether an elected official automatically vacated office has now moved through multiple courts and may ultimately land before the Texas Supreme Court.
At the start and end of December, Jason Corley held the Precinct 2 seat. For several days in the middle of the month, however, Mark Meurer occupied the position after being sworn in as Corley’s replacement. That brief change set off a chain of lawsuits, appeals, and emergency motions that remain unresolved.
The conflict began on Dec. 8, when County Judge Curtis Parrish declared Corley automatically resigned from office after Corley became a candidate for Congress with more than one year and 30 days left in his county term. Parrish cited the Texas Constitution’s “automatic resignation” provision, which applies to certain officeholders who announce candidacy for another office. Corley disputed that interpretation. Nonetheless, Parrish swore in Meurer as the new Precinct 2 commissioner that same morning.
Corley immediately sued. Days later, the State of Texas intervened on his behalf, represented by Potter County Attorney Scott Brumley. That intervention proved important, because under Texas law, certain challenges to someone’s right to hold office must be brought by the state through a procedure known as quo warranto, rather than by an individual officeholder.
On Dec. 19, visiting retired judge Patrick Pirtle ordered Corley restored to office after a court hearing. Meurer’s attorney, Kristen LaFreniere, immediately appealed and requested emergency relief. Three days later, the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo denied that emergency request. Corley then resumed participating in Commissioners Court meetings, including one held the same day the emergency request was denied.
Since then, Meurer has taken his argument to the Texas Supreme Court, filing both an emergency motion and a petition for mandamus. In those filings, Meurer argues that immediate action is needed to put him back in office while the appeal continues. His emergency motion states, “Only emergency relief from this court will assist Meurer in regaining his statutory right … and allow him to stay in office pending his appeal.” LaFreniere also warned that the appeals court’s refusal to pause the case had already prevented Meurer from carrying out his duties, writing that the decision “has already resulted in Meurer being unable to participate in one Commissioners’ Court meeting.”
Corley, for his part, is skeptical that the state’s highest court will intervene. “I doubt the Supreme Court is going to rule any differently than what the appeals court has already ruled,” he said, calling the continued litigation “a waste of taxpayer money at this point.” Corley has submitted roughly $12,000 in legal bills to Lubbock County, anticipating a vote by commissioners later this month to reimburse the costs. He has also said he expects the fight to drag on, noting, “The Supreme Court of Texas stays pretty busy. I will be surprised if it makes it before the Supreme Court [for a final ruling], before the end of my term.”
Judge Parrish has emphasized that the underlying facts of the case have not yet been fully explored. “I didn’t remove Jason Corley from office,” Parrish said. “The only thing I did – I appointed a suitable resident of the precinct because of the vacancy.” Parrish maintains that the vacancy existed automatically under the constitution. “If you look at the constitution, it’s an automatic resignation,” he said.
Brumley, representing the state, has taken the opposite view in court filings, stating that Corley did not resign and that Meurer was unlawfully holding the office. In mid-December, Brumley wrote that “Meurer is usurping, and is unlawfully holding and executing, the office of county commissioner.”
Much of the current dispute centers not on who is right, but on how the case has proceeded procedurally. When Corley first sued, Meurer challenged the court’s authority to hear the case, arguing Corley lacked standing. District Attorney Sunshine Stanek recused her office, leading to Brumley’s appointment to represent the state and file quo warranto on Corley’s behalf.
During the Dec. 19 hearing, Judge Pirtle initially allowed Corley to proceed. LaFreniere immediately appealed, which under procedural rules triggered an automatic stay. Pirtle then revised his ruling, limiting the case to arguments presented by Brumley on behalf of the state. After hearing testimony, Pirtle ordered Corley restored to office.
The appeals court later denied emergency relief and questioned whether Meurer even has the right to pursue this particular type of appeal, giving him until Jan. 20 to respond. Pirtle has since urged the parties to move forward toward a final hearing, noting the public importance of resolving the issue quickly.
Meurer’s filings to the Texas Supreme Court argue that his removal violated due process and set a troubling precedent. LaFreniere wrote that the trial court “entered an injunction removing an officeholder from office, installing another,” and warned that it could allow officials to be removed “by judicial fiat with essentially no appellate review in the meantime.”
As the case continues, Precinct 2 remains represented by Corley, at least for now. Whether that will change again depends on how higher courts interpret both the constitution and the complex procedural path the dispute has taken—an outcome that remains uncertain, even as the legal bills and public attention continue to grow.
