# Gonzalez v. Graham

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-0221

**Gonzalez v. Graham, No. 24-0221, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: The Court denied a motion for rehearing on March 7, 2025, of its September 27, 2024 denial of Reynaldo Gonzalez's petition for review of a suit under Election Code § 253.131; Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Sullivan noted their dissent from the denial of rehearing without writing.**

Practice areas: election law, civil procedure

## Key issues

- The Court denied a motion for rehearing on March 7, 2025, of its September 27, 2024 denial of Reynaldo Gonzalez's petition for review of a suit under Election Code § 253.131; Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Sullivan noted their dissent from the denial of rehearing without writing.

## Factual History
Rey Gonzalez filed in December 2021 to run against Morgan Graham, the incumbent Cameron County Republican Party chair, for that post; Graham, who reviewed ballot applications, rejected his as incomplete. Gonzalez's mandamus petition to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals was denied, and Graham won unopposed. She then complained to the Texas Ethics Commission that Gonzalez, though never on the ballot, had to file campaign-finance paperwork because he raised and spent money on the mandamus suit; Gonzalez cured the omissions, the Commission dismissed the complaint without penalty, and Graham sued him under Election Code § 253.131 for statutory damages and attorney's fees (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 10, 12-14).

## Procedural History
Gonzalez moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, arguing chiefly that Graham lacked standing because she suffered no injury traceable to his paperwork errors. The trial court denied the motion, and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding her interest in ensuring an election is validly conducted gave her standing and that she did not have to show clear and specific evidence of standing (2024 WL 194213, Jan. 18, 2024). The Court denied the petition September 27, 2024; Gonzalez moved for rehearing October 11, 2024, the Court requested a response, and it denied rehearing March 7, 2025 (Petition for Review, PDF p. 7; Docket).

## Issues Presented
Whether the trial court and court of appeals erred in denying the motion to dismiss because Graham lacked standing, whether her interest in a validly conducted election gave her standing despite intangible injury, and whether, as a respondent to the TCPA motion, she had to show clear and specific evidence of standing (Petition for Review, PDF p. 10).

## Legal Arguments
**Gonzalez (Petitioner):** Graham suffered no concrete injury traceable to his paperwork errors, the ruling chills candidates from participating in elections, and In re Charette, which limits who may enforce such statutes, confirms she lacks standing (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 10, 12; Reply in Support of Motion for Rehearing, PDF p. 2). **Graham (Respondent):** as chair and as a candidate she has an interest in ensuring the election was validly conducted, which the court of appeals accepted (Petition for Review, PDF p. 12).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
Not applicable; the Court denied the petition and rehearing without writing.

## Practice Area Tags
election-law, civil-procedure

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals; petition denied September 27, 2024, motion for rehearing denied March 7, 2025, with Chief Justice Blacklock and Justice Sullivan noting their dissent (Docket).

## Amicus Involvement
None noted

---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/24-0221. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.