The city hired an outside law firm instead of writing a response with its own legal staff, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf attorneys can\u2019t run a brief to the Seventh Court of Appeals, my gosh, what\u2019s going on?\u201d Boren said.<\/p>\n
LubbockLights.com also offered the city a chance to comment. If that invitation is later accepted, we will provide an update.<\/p>\n
Quick refresher, \u2018mandamus\u2019<\/p>\n
Boren filed a request for \u201cmandamus\u201d directly to the appeals court to force the city to let him back in the race.<\/p>\n
Mandamus is in some ways like a lawsuit but it\u2019s only available when the facts are undisputed and the only thing left to decide is an interpretation of the law. It also allows both sides to bypass State District Court in Lubbock.<\/p>\n
Boren filed on April 7. The Seventh Court of Appeals gave Lubbock until Tuesday (April 14) to respond.<\/p>\n
Click here to read<\/a> the city\u2019s response. <\/p>\n The city is raising a technical legal issue to the Seventh Court. The charter only calls for someone to be a bona fide resident at the time of filing. But bona fide resident is not defined.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Charter does not affirmatively prescribe any \u2018different\u2019 durational requirement,\u201d the city\u2019s response said. <\/p>\n Rather than set a residency requirement at zero, the charter never addresses length of residency, according to the city. So that means it falls back to state law \u2013 six months.<\/p>\n The city said in part:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Charter requires candidates to be bona fide residents within the city and within the applicable District \u2018at the time of filing for office.\u2019 That provision identifies the moment at which residency is assessed. It establishes a point-in-time test. It is silent as to how long the candidate must have maintained that residency before filing. The verb \u2018prescribe\u2019 demands an affirmative act \u2014 the establishment of a definite, stated standard. Omitting a durational requirement is not the same as prescribing a shorter one. Where the Charter is silent on duration, the default requirement of \u00a7 141.001(a)(5) clearly fills the gap.\u201d<\/p>\n The city legal brief said the six-month requirement is public knowledge and on the city\u2019s website.<\/p>\n Referring to the web page, the city\u2019s brief said, \u201cIt is undeniable that the City of Lubbock has a longstanding tradition of requiring the six-month district residency requirement \u2026 \u201d<\/p>\n Boren took issue with that.<\/p>\n \u201cThey even affirmed that on their own website, but guess what they did? They went in and changed it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n LubbockLights.com used an Internet archive literally called the Wayback Machine<\/a>. We looked at the webpage listed in the city\u2019s response.<\/p>\n The archive showed the residency requirement was listed in December 2023<\/a> but not June 2023<\/a>. In June there was no state residency requirement \u2013 only \u201c[candidates] \u2026 shall be bona fide residents within the City and within the applicable District at the time of filing for office.\u201d<\/p>\n Boren filed twice<\/p>\n Boren submitted a second application to be on the ballot April 7 \u2013 just to clean up a clerical issue on his first application. The city rejected the second application Monday \u2013 on the very same basis as the first. Boren lived in the district for two months \u2013 not six months or more.<\/p>\n \n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/volunteer_activism_96dp_000000_FILL0_wght400_GRAD0_opsz48.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n