Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Speights v. Willis

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided October 24, 2002No. 09-02-192 CVPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDon Burgess, Justice

I concur with the majority’s holding on the residency issue. Mr. Speights simply did not meet his burden of showing a sufficient number of non-residents voted. However, I respectfully dissent to the registration issue.

This issue involves three pertinent sections of the Election Code. Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 13.002(c)(7) (Vernon Supp.2002) requires a voter registration application to include “the applicant’s residence address or, if the residence has no address, the address at which the applicant receives mail and a concise description of the location of the applicant’s residence.” Tex.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Alvarez v. Espinoza, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1992
  2. Fischer v. StoutAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Thompson v. WillisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API