Does the Equal Protection Clause's one man, one vote requirement apply to the election of Texas appellate court justices?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question 1: Does the Equal Protection Clause’s one man, one vote requirement apply to the election of Texas appellate court justices so as to require equal voting strength in the selection of state officials who will act to set the state’s legal precedents? The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that states apportion their voting districts in a manner that assures all voters have roughly equal voting strength. Texas obeys this mandate with regard to most of its elected representatives, but not with regard to its appellate judiciary. abundant case precedent out of this Court—timely and properly sued the state of Texas, its Governor, and its Secretary of State, for injunctive and declaratory relief and asked the court to create and implement an “interim” districting map that would give every Texas voter equal proportional representation in those elections. Question 2: Is the trial court required to accept the causes of action and remedy sought by the plaintiff in a well-pleaded complaint and make its rulings thereon, or may it ‘recast’ the claims and remedies more to its liking and thereby deprive itself of jurisdiction? The district court dismissed the case under FRCP 12(b)(1) based on its opinion that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to implement a remedy. That court ignored Petitioner’s request for a judicial remedy in the u absence of a legislative plan. It believed Petitioner had sued ‘the wrong defendants’ and should have sued two state redistricting boards instead of the Secretary of State, even though the Secretary of State is the state official charged with enforcing Texas election laws. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Because of these jurisdictional errors, neither court reached the merits. Because this case was timely filed and the merits issue remains extant, the case presents the Court with a unique and long-overdue opportunity to address the question of whether states like Texas, that employ partisan elections for their appellate courts,! must afford their voters equal protection in the configuration of their voting districts. Given that this is an election issue and the next election in November 2024 runs the risk of violating the Constitution if held under the present voting scheme, the case presents a critical election-law issue that requires prompt relief from this Court. 1. Because Texas trial court’s do not issue opinions and their judgments have no precedential effect beyond the parties before them, Petitioner has confined her equal protection challenge to the state’s appellate court districting.