Attorney Jerad Najvar

10/07/2026

We refused to consider settlement. Now we are on the offense to hold the Biden Campaign plaintiffs accountable for their lawfare.

10/07/2026

We're fighting to hold the Biden campaign plaintiffs accountable and pay our attorneys' fees.

10/07/2026

"The Mesaroses will not be settling this matter."

Two years ago, a unanimous federal jury rejected the Democrats' lies about my clients in the Trump Train trial. As our fight to force them to pay our attorneys' fees heats up, a little backstory most people haven't heard.

Through their aggressive national media campaign, unlimited resources, and 24+ attorneys (most from DC and New York), the Biden Campaign plaintiffs waged a campaign of intimidation that would have crushed many good people without the wherewithal to fight back. My clients had the kind of spine Wendy Davis and her friends didn't expect.

About 18 months in, we told the court we had no interest in mediation "unless the outcome would be a dismissal of the claims against them." In other words, we weren't budging.

Plaintiffs then actually asked the court to FORCE us into mediation. We filed a response, explaining why we would never settle. I wrote in March 2023 (18 mos before trial) that "Plaintiffs' lawsuit is a politically motivated abuse of the judicial system with the purpose--regardless of its dressing-up by Plaintiffs' attorneys--of dissuading political opponents from engaging in protected political speech and association."

I told the court Plaintiffs' claim that Robert had driven recklessly was "a blatant misrepresentation" and "the video evidence and Plaintiffs' own testimony will prove this at trial."

In closing, I wrote "the Mesaroses will not be settling this matter, because they did nothing other than engage in protected speech and association, Plaintiffs' claims otherwise are either knowingly exaggerated or badly misconceived, and the Mesaroses will not allow the Plaintiffs to establish a legal precedent to intimidate people into giving up their rights."

In short, 18 months in, when the Biden folks wanted to force settlement talks, we said hell no. The Mesaroses might have had an opportunity to walk away from this case and avoid years of additional expense and grief in this grueling process, but they refused to even consider it, on principle.

Instead, I told the court (1) Plaintiffs' claims are trash factually and legally; (2) the whole thing is sophisticated lawfare to intimidate conservatives; and (3) when the jury sees the evidence we will be vindicated. That's exactly what happened.

I thank God for the opportunity to represent these fantastic folks who stood up to Goliath and won. Stay tuned as we tell you over the next few months about our fight to hold the Plaintiffs and their lawyers accountable for their lies.

07/01/2026

Najvar quoted in a new article in The Texan today:

“The Attorney General is saying that regardless of the legality of assuming the second office, the fact that he actually did it should mean that he resigned his first office and actually did exercise the power of these conflicting offices over a three-year period.”

Garcia served on a board with overlapping authority to tax and regulate for three years.

06/30/2026

TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL AMICUS BRIEF: ADRIAN GARCIA RESIGNED FROM COMMISSIONERS' COURT

In a huge development in our case on behalf of taxpayer advocate Mark Goloby and Pct. 2 Commissioner candidate Richard Vega, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Texas Attorney General, has advised the Texas Supreme Court that the State AGREES with the arguments we have advanced on behalf of our clients:

The AG writes (in the last paragraph):

"The facts of this case—in which Garcia executed the oath of office as a board member of the Gulf Coast Protection District, participated in public meetings, and voted as a board member, Pet. 18—illustrate the wisdom of the common law rule. Treating acceptance of an incompatible office as a resignation of an incompatible existing office is “indispensable for the protection of the public.” Stubbs, 64 Me. at 198."

Texas AG amicus letter linked below:

06/30/2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact:
June 26, 2026 Jerad Najvar (281) 404-4696

Texas Supreme Court to Decide if Adrian Garcia Left Harris County Pct. 2 Office Vacant by Accepting Appointment to Conflicting Government Office

Case seeks August special election to fill vacancy in Pct. 2 before Commissioners’ Court votes on budget and tax rates – potentially creating 3-2 split allowing dissenting Commissioners to thwart tax increase

HOUSTON, TEX. – The Texas Supreme Court is expected to decide, before July 6, whether Adrian Garcia, the purported Commissioner for Harris County Precinct 2, automatically resigned in 2023 when he accepted appointment to a different government office in conflict with his duties owed to Precinct 2 residents and voters. If the Court decides Garcia vacated his Commissioner’s seat, the plaintiffs ask for two types of relief. First, Precinct 2 voters should be entitled to a special election to fill the Pct. 2 seat before Commissioners’ September votes on the budget and tax rates. An election could usher in a 3-2 split enabling dissenting Commissioners to thwart any tax increases. Second, any spending projects approved in 3-2 votes with Garcia’s support should be enjoined as well as Garcia’s substantial salary as Commissioner.

Plaintiffs in the case are taxpayer advocate Mark Goloby and Richard Vega, pastor and longtime Precinct 2 resident who is also the Republican nominee on the November ballot for Commissioners’ Court Precinct 2.

Adrian Garcia was first elected to Harris County Commissioners’ Court in 2018. After the Legislature created the Gulf Coast Protection District (GCPD) in 2021, Commissioners’ Court appointed Garcia to represent the County on the board. Garcia accepted, and for three full years (from Aug. 2021 to Aug. 2024, shortly after this lawsuit was filed) served simultaneously on the GCPD board and as Pct. 2 Commissioner. (Garcia was re-appointed to the GCPD in the summer of 2023, shortly after starting his second term as Commissioner.) This dual officeholding violated longstanding Texas law prohibiting simultaneous service in conflicting government offices. Both GCPD and Commissioners’ Court tax the same residents and exercise eminent domain authority, and negotiate interlocal agreements, among other conflicting duties.

Since at least 1864, Texas law has recognized that when an officeholder assumes a second, incompatible office, “the first office is ipso facto vacated,” “leav[ing] no shadow of title to the possessor,” and the vacancy is effective immediately so that no court process is required for the relevant officials to fill the seat. Biencourt v. Parker, 27 Tex. 558, 562 (Tex. 1864). The Texas Election Code recognizes this rule, stating that, “[i]f an officer accepts another office and the two offices may not lawfully be held simultaneously, a vacancy in the first office occurs on the date the person qualifies for the other office.” Tex. Elec. Code § 201.025. The Election Code therefore required Harris County Commissioners to order an election to fill the vacancy in the Precinct 2 seat, under § 202.002(a).

Commissioners’ Court never recognized the vacancy or ordered the election to fill the seat.

Harris County resident and taxpayer Mark Goloby, who has also run for statewide office to stand up for taxpayer issues, sued in June 2024, seeking to enjoin any further expenditures by the County that are illegal due to Garcia’s automatic resignation, which include his continued Commissioners’ salary (in excess of $180,000/year) and certain controversial spending items approved 3-2 with Garcia’s vote during the critical period between August 2021 and December 2022, when Commissioners’ Court was split 3-2.

Richard Vega joined the suit in November 2024, asking the Court to compel Commissioners to fulfill their duty under the Election Code to order an election to fill the remainder of the current, unexpired term. Vega is specifically asking the Court to order an election for August, which would allow the winner to take office before Commissioners vote in mid-September on the budget and tax rates.

Weeks after this case was filed, Commissioners quietly removed Garcia from the GCPD (effectively admitting the offices are incompatible) and then argued he never resigned as Commissioner because he was never eligible to be appointed by the Commissioners’ Court to another office, under the prohibition on “self-appointment.” The Harris County District Court dismissed the case (without any written opinion), and the First Court of Appeals accepted the County’s position that, since Garcia was never eligible to be appointed to the GCPD, he never legally assumed the office and therefore never resigned as Commissioner.

Goloby and Vega are now seeking relief in the Texas Supreme Court. They appealed the First Court’s decision, and Vega has filed an urgent petition for mandamus, requesting an order for an August election to fill the seat before the September budget and tax votes. If the election is held, a Republican victory would fundamentally change the dynamics on Commissioners’ Court because it would move back to a 3-2 split, enabling two Republican commissioners to thwart any tax increase in September.

“The County doesn’t dispute that Garcia accepted the appointment to the GCPD board, took the oath of office, and actually served for three years in the conflicting office,” said attorney Jerad Najvar. “Even if the appointment was void, Garcia exercised the powers of two conflicting offices at the same time, dividing his loyalty owed to Precinct 2. The normal consequences should apply, meaning he resigned and voters should get to fill the seat.”

Mark Goloby said, “Garcia and the Harris County Attorney either didn’t know the law or deliberately ignored it. Commissioner Garcia is in the precarious position of figuratively having one foot in the boat and one on the shore, and he might fall into the port,” explaining that Garcia should lose both offices, not just the GCPD position.

Richard Vega said, “Taxpayers are being asked to accept the idea that an elected official can take an oath, serve in an office, cast votes, exercise governmental authority for more than a year, and then claim none of it matters,” Vega said. “That is a question every voter should be paying attention to.”

The Petition for Mandamus (No. 26-0464) is pending and awaiting a decision by July 6. The underlying Petition for Review of the full case case is No. 26-0634. Vega’s proposed schedule for an August special election is here.

# # #

Jerad Najvar, based in Houston, litigates constitutional and election law matters in state and federal courts. He has prevailed in constitutional cases against various governmental entities including Austin, Houston, the Texas Ethics Commission and Federal Election Commission, and in administrative law challenges against the Food & Drug Administration. He is a member of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Wallen LLC.

MAY 8, 2026 PETITION FOR MANDAMUS LINKED BELOW

04/21/2026

Politicians and judges in Texas right now too often enjoy a practical immunity from accountability for their criminal misconduct because when they get caught, too often the prosecutors drop charges in exchange for a mere resignation.

RESIGNATION ISN’T ENOUGH.

Officials entrusted with authority who abuse it should be prosecuted regardless of a resignation.

04/17/2026

Jerad Najvar, counsel for Plaintiffs Mark Goloby and Richard Vega, explained why he will seek review by the Texas Supreme Court:

"The Court of Appeals' fundamental mistake is to assume - at Harris County's desperate urging - that while Adrian Garcia clearly broke two good-government rules of law, he can only be held accountable for one of them. That is a false tension. Everyone agrees Garcia was illegally appointed to represent the County on the Gulf Coast Protection District in 2023. But the fact he actually assumed that second office, despite being ineligible, and sat as a GCPD board member for three years, also means he resigned as a matter of law from Commissioners' Court."

The stakes are high.

Richard Vega is the Republican nominee for Pct. 2, running against Garcia in November. But if the Court agrees that Garcia resigned from office in Aug 2023, the seat is currently vacant, and Pct. 2 voters are entitled to a special election to fill the seat THIS YEAR, which could result in another Republican on Commissioners' Court, allowing Vega and Ramsey together to thwart any tax increase or irresponsible budget in September 2026.

Mark Goloby is suing as a taxpayer to stop any further illegal salary payments to Garcia and any further payments for irresponsible spending approved with Garcia's vote as part of the 3-2 Democratic majority in 2021-2022 (and we know large sums of money remain to be spent pursuant to illegal votes during that period).

Below, watch the appellate argument held April 8, 2026. Jerad Najvar for Appellants; Jonathan Fombonne, acting County Attorney, for Respondents.

The First Court of Appeals issued a decision on April 16, holding that since Garcia was ineligible for appointment to the GCPD, he never legally assumed that office, and therefore did not resign as Commissioner.

01-25-00409-CV Mark Goloby and Richard Vega v. Lesley Briones, Adrian Garcia, Lina Hidalgo, Rodney Ellis, and Tom Ramsey, all in their official capacities as...

04/01/2026

Honored that a couple of my partners at Chalmers Adams are helping O’Keefe out in reply to this crazy restraining order.

02/24/2026

CORRECTION: the County actually did respond 2/23 but for some reason I didn't get the normal email service from the court. These things happen. I'll be filing a Reply on behalf of Vega and asking the Court to rule as soon as possible. Stay tuned.

**

HARRIS COUNTY FAILS TO RESPOND TO RICHARD VEGA'S MANDAMUS PETITION

As discussed in a previous post, I'm representing Pct. 2 Commissioner candidate Richard Vega. Vega is running in the R primary in March. But I'm representing him because he's also seeking to force Harris County to order a special election to fill the remainder of the CURRENT term (through the end of 2026), which is CURRENTLY VACANT because Adrian Garcia resigned as a matter of law when he accepted a position on the Gulf Coast Protection District. We explained to the court that plenty of time remains to hold an election to allow a new rep to be seated in time to thwart any plans to raise taxes in September 2026.

The court doesn't have to request responses to a mandamus petition like this; if they don't see merit in it, they will just deny it without putting the opposing party to the expense of a response. Harris County has all along postured as if our arguments are frivolous. But back on 2/10, the First Court of Appeals requested a response from the County--a clear indication the Court sees potential merit in our arguments and wants the County to explain itself.

The Court gave Harris County until yesterday, 2/23, to file its response. Nothing was filed. Why can't Harris County respond to the arguments they claimed initially were frivolous?

We will take appropriate action in the Court.