Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz
940 S.W.2d 86, 40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 384, 1997 Tex. LEXIS 30 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The free speech, equal rights, and due course of law guarantees of the Texas Bill of Rights apply only to state actors and not to private entities. A political party's management of its convention, including controlling exhibitors and advertisements, is an internal party affair and does not constitute state action.
Facts:
- The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) is a non-profit corporation of Republicans who support equal civil rights for gay and lesbian individuals.
- In April 1996, LCR applied for an exhibitor's booth at the 1996 Republican Party of Texas Convention.
- As part of the application, LCR agreed to abide by Party rules, which allowed the Party to restrict exhibits for any reason, including their content.
- The Republican Party's Exhibits Chairman orally approved the application and the Party cashed LCR's $400 check for the booth.
- On May 15, 1996, LCR submitted a proposed advertisement for the convention program that asserted its beliefs, along with a $750 check. The ad application noted all ads were subject to Party approval.
- On May 21, 1996, the Republican Party's Executive Director sent a letter to LCR rejecting both the advertisement and the booth request, and refunded the money.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 30, 1996, Log Cabin Republicans sued the Republican Party of Texas in a Travis County district court (a trial court), seeking injunctive relief.
- On June 14, 1996, the district court held a hearing and issued a temporary injunction ordering the Republican Party to provide the booth and advertisement space to Log Cabin Republicans.
- On June 17, 1996, the Republican Party of Texas (as relator) filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay the injunction directly with the Supreme Court of Texas (the state's highest court), seeking to overturn the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a political party's refusal to grant a booth and advertisement space at its state convention to an affiliated group constitute state action, thereby subjecting the party's decision to the free speech, equal rights, and due course of law guarantees of the Texas Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Abbott, J.
No. A political party's refusal to provide booth and advertisement space at its convention is not state action because it is an internal party affair, and therefore the guarantees of the Texas Constitution do not apply. The court reasoned that the Texas Bill of Rights, particularly Article I, Section 29, serves as a shield against the powers of government, not the actions of private individuals or organizations. While political parties can be state actors when performing integral electoral functions like conducting primary elections (as seen in the federal 'White Primary Cases'), they remain private organizations when conducting internal affairs. Managing a convention to shape a party platform is an internal affair, not a state-regulated electoral process. Furthermore, even on contractual grounds, the injunction was improper because LCR had agreed to rules giving the Party discretion to restrict exhibits and approve advertisements, meaning the injunction granted LCR more rights than it contractually possessed.
Concurring - Spector, J.
While concurring in the judgment, this opinion disagrees with the majority's broad rationale. Justice Spector argues that the majority prematurely and definitively adopts a state action requirement for the Texas Bill of Rights without sufficient analysis of the specific constitutional text, which is phrased as an affirmative grant of rights ('every person shall be at liberty to speak') unlike the U.S. Constitution's negative restraints ('Congress shall make no law'). Even assuming a state action requirement applies, the conclusion that it is absent here is debatable, as a trial court could find a 'symbiotic relationship' between the state and a major political party, particularly when the convention is held at a public facility. The majority's opinion, therefore, precipitately cuts off important political debate on an underdeveloped record.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the state action doctrine as a prerequisite for claims brought under the Texas Constitution's free speech, equal rights, and due course of law provisions. It creates a clear distinction between a political party's public, government-like functions (running primaries) and its private, internal affairs (managing conventions and platforms). The ruling strengthens the associational rights of political parties, allowing them to control their own messaging and organization without constitutional constraints that apply to the government, thereby limiting the ability of internal dissenting groups to compel inclusion.
