## Facts

- The Log Cabin Republicans of Texas and Texas Log Cabin Republicans, Inc. (LCR) sought an exhibitor booth and a program advertisement at the 1996 Republican Party of Texas Convention.
- LCR submitted applications and payments of $400 for the booth and $750 for the advertisement; the Party initially accepted the booth payment and received the advertisement materials.
- Convention rules reserved to the Party “the right to restrict exhibits” for “material, content, or any other reason” deemed objectionable.
- The Party later rejected LCR’s booth and advertisement and returned the payments.
- LCR sued in Travis County district court asserting Texas constitutional claims and contract-based claims (including specific performance) to compel booth and ad placement.
- The district court (Judge John K. Dietz) issued a temporary injunction requiring the Party to provide booth space and advertisement space at the convention.
- The Party sought mandamus relief and an emergency stay in the Texas Supreme Court; the court stayed the injunction before the convention occurred.
- By the time the court issued its opinion, the convention had already taken place, rendering the mandamus request moot, but the court issued an opinion explaining why the stay was proper.

## Issues

1. Whether the Party’s refusal to provide convention booth and advertisement space to LCR constituted “state action” so that LCR could assert Texas constitutional Bill of Rights claims against the Party.
2. Whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion by granting a temporary injunction compelling booth and advertisement placement despite the convention rules reserving discretion to restrict exhibits and content.
3. Whether mandamus relief was appropriate because the Party lacked an adequate remedy by appeal given the time-sensitive nature of the convention.

## Decision

- The court concluded the Party’s booth and advertisement decisions were internal party affairs and did not constitute state action; the Texas Bill of Rights did not apply to the Party on these facts.
- The court held the trial court clearly abused its discretion by issuing a mandatory temporary injunction compelling booth and advertisement placement.
- The court determined mandamus relief would have been appropriate due to clear error and the lack of an adequate appellate remedy before mootness, though the mandamus petition became moot after the convention.

## Legal Principles

- Texas constitutional Bill of Rights protections generally restrain governmental conduct; purely private conduct is not subject to those provisions absent state action.
- A political party’s internal convention decisions (such as exhibitor and advertising approvals) are not state action merely because the party participates in electoral politics; state action requires a function sufficiently tied to the state’s election machinery.
- Temporary injunctive relief may not grant relief exceeding what the plaintiff’s legal rights plausibly support, particularly where the parties’ agreement reserves discretion to one side that the injunction would negate.
- Mandamus requires (1) a clear abuse of discretion and (2) no adequate remedy by appeal; time-limited disputes that will become moot before appellate review can satisfy the inadequate-remedy requirement.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court treated the Party’s convention exhibitor and advertising decisions as private association matters, not state action, and held the district court’s mandatory temporary injunction improperly compelled specific performance that conflicted with the contractual reservation of discretion; expedited mandamus relief was warranted in light of the convention’s imminent mootness.


Republican Party of Tex. v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. 1997)