Hard to deny

Good government oxymoron made this comment earlier this week:

Did Hatch vote in the election he ran in?

Not all candidates show up on the ballot, only candidates running in the district you are registered to vote in.

If Hatch voted in the election he ran in then surely would have noticed that he was NOT on the ballot.

We deserve better



9 Responses to Hard to deny

  1. John Hogan says:

    Great point.


    • Dan Wever says:

      When you vote I have never, not been asked if I still lived at the same address listed in the voting record book. So he either thought he lived at the District 6 address or he lied!


      • Michael Bray says:

        So, take a look at his voting record. Is there anything there that he could possibly have illegally benefitted from? If not, he’s gone, case closed.


        • Anonymous says:

          T’was Cabrera who benefitted from this ruse by having a strong ‘yes-man’ on the board. I wonder if JC’s knowledge of Hatch’s true residence implicates him? I also wonder which address EPISD use when sending mail to Trent Hatch? It would be funny if he used the district 7 address for his EPISD correspondence while he represented district 6!


  2. Anonymous says:

    It is possible that he was registered to vote at the residence in District 7, but was using the homestead exemption at the address in District 6. Now he is in between a rock and hard place. On the one hand he is looking at possible charges for fraudulently representing District 6, and on the other hand he is looking at not being completely honest about his homestead exemption. I wonder which one is the greater crime? Time to get a lawyer! No wonder he is being quiet and hoping this all goes away. Poor guy.

    I think it is more interesting to consider who conspired with him in all this. Or at a minimum, who knew about it (or whose job it was to know about it) and did nothing; either out of ignorance or malice. As has been stated earlier, was it not the responsibility Cabrera or Margo to make sure the election was legal and proper? Hatch might be in a good place for the DA to get him to turn on his accomplices…


    • Windering Citizen says:

      EPISD is already distancing itself from Hatch. It’s thank you for your serving one day and too bad for you and your problems the next! I wonder if EPISD ever sent Hatch anything through the US mail? I wonder what address they mailed it to?


    • Anonymous says:

      Why does there ALWAYS have to be some conspiracy? (So trolls have something to talk about).

      It may just be a case of negligence, which is bad, but doesn’t rise to the level as some would have us believe.


  3. good governance oxymoron says:

    After looking into this further, “residency” seems to be legally quite ambiguous and open for interpretation depending on personal circumstance and personal intention.

    In brief, based on the current case law, an additional home outside District 6 with a homestead exemption and use of that home as a mailing address does not conclusively establish the homestead as residency.

    Considering Mr Hatch was very involved as an established booster where his children attended schools in the District 6 feeder pattern, and he owned a home in District 6, which was his voter registration address, it seems it would be difficult to establish that he did not satisfy District 6 “residency”.

    The cross over of the feeder patterns would also seem to cloud the issue.

    When Mr Hatch sold the District 6 home he no longer satisfied residency and had to resign, which he did.

    Resignation or removal from office are the only consequence of not satisfying residency.

    Reference links for EPISD policy, current case law, and points are included below.

    The EPISD residency requirement at https://www.episd.org/Page/6730 in file BBA(LEGAL).pdf states among other things that

    EPISD requires candidates have “residency” in a district, but does not make determinations as to whether one “satisfies residency requirements” in a particular district, instead they leave it up to the court decide

    >>> Note: The issue of whether a candidate has satisfied residency requirements should be judicially determined. State v. Fischer, 769 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, writ dism’d w.o.j)

    Here is a link to the text of the current case law and 4 points pulled out of context


    > The meaning that must be given to [the term ‘residence’] depends upon the circumstances surrounding the person involved and largely depends upon the present intention of the individual

    > A homestead designation outside a particular voting district is relevant to consideration of residence but does not conclusively establish residence

    > Deriving tax benefits, such as a homestead exemption, from one property does not automatically preclude a finding that the person actually resides at another property

    > Moving to a property solely to meet the residency requirements for running for public office is not relevant to the ultimate question of where one resides


Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: