FORT BEND COUNTY — The battle over who has the authority to sit as Fort Bend County judge is headed toward a possible showdown Thursday, as Democratic leaders move to declare Interim County Judge Daniel Wong out of office while legal questions remain unresolved.
At the center of the dispute is a simple but unanswered question: Did the dismissal of the lawsuit that led to Wong’s appointment automatically end his authority — or does a court still need to act?
That question could determine what happens when Commissioners Court meets Thursday.
The dispute began after Sarah Roberts, the plaintiff in the civil lawsuit that resulted in former County Judge K.P. George’s removal, filed a nonsuit ending the case. Since then, Democratic county judge candidate Dexter McCoy, Commissioner Grady Prestage, County Attorney Bridgette Smith-Lawson and Fort Bend County Democratic Party Chair Jennifer Cantu have argued that Wong’s appointment ended with the litigation.
McCoy has turned the issue into an election-year flashpoint, accusing Wong of attempting to hold onto power after the legal basis for his appointment disappeared.
“Mr. Wong will be on the ballot in front of voters in a few months,” McCoy said. “His attempts to stay in office at all costs are a clear indication that he knows what their verdict will be.”
But Wong’s supporters and legal observers argue the situation is not that simple.
The first legal obstacle is procedural.
Wong’s communications director, Bobby Eberle, said a plaintiff’s decision to withdraw a lawsuit does not automatically erase a court order.
“One thing is for certain. Judge Wong is still Judge Wong,” Eberle told the Fort Bend Falcon. “A desire from the plaintiff to end the case does not end the case. The judge still needs to take action on the dismissal request. Until that happens, Judge Wong retains the office and full legal authority to execute the duties of that office.”
The second question involves the legal effect of the order that placed Wong in office.
Appearing on Fox 26 Wednesday, legal analyst Chris Tritico said Wong’s appointment came through a final judgment and argued the dismissal of the underlying lawsuit did not invalidate that ruling.
“The judgment placing Wong in office is final,” Tritico said. “And therefore, we no longer need this litigation on the books. That’s all that happened. So it’s inaccurate to say that the dismissal renders the judgment void. It did not. They just took the lawsuit off the books because it’s no longer necessary.”
Tritico also suggested the controversy has become part of the county judge campaign.
“To me, what’s happening today is the Democratic opponent trying to get some leverage off of the dismissal of this, to get his name back out there and create some doubt about what happened and some doubt about his appointment, so he can get something going on in the election,” Tritico said.
On Wednesday, Smith-Lawson issued a legal opinion stating that an order signed June 17 concluded the litigation that resulted in Wong’s appointment and dissolved his authority to act as county judge.
“Mr. Wong no longer possesses the legal authority to act as County Judge,” Smith-Lawson wrote.
She further advised commissioners that Wong could not participate in Commissioners Court or represent himself as the current county judge unless he obtained a new active court order.
Prestage agreed with that interpretation and said he plans to preside over Thursday’s meeting as the senior member of Commissioners Court.
“According to state law, there are now only four members of Commissioners Court with the legal authority to hold office and conduct county business,” Prestage said.
Another legal issue could complicate the situation: the Texas Constitution’s holdover provision.
Article XVI, Section 17 generally allows public officers to continue serving until their successors are duly qualified. In many circumstances, that means an official remains in place until a replacement has been properly selected, sworn in and qualified.
Whether that provision applies to Wong’s appointment remains an open question.
The unusual circumstances surrounding Wong’s appointment have created a scenario where the county could enter Thursday’s meeting with competing claims of authority.
Wong has retained attorney Chris Hilton, who previously represented Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and is expected to address the controversy at a press conference Thursday.
What happens next is unclear.
Commissioners could move forward without Wong, Wong could appear and assert his authority, or the matter could ultimately return to court for clarification.
For now, the fight is no longer only over who sits in the county judge’s chair — it is over who has the power to decide who gets to sit there.