sheriff did not present a political question); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 28, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968) (concluding that an Ohio election law making it difficult for a new political party to gain access to state ballot did not present a political question). 177 . 531 U.S. 70, 121 S.Ct. 471, 148 L.Ed.2d 366 (2000). 178 . 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000). 179 . See, e.g., Rachel Barkow, More Supreme Than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy, 102 COLUM. L. REV. 237, 271 (2002); Robert 859, 867 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988), rev’d, Edgewood I, 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.1989); State ex rel. Grimes County Taxpayers Ass’n v. Tex. Mun. Power Agency, 565 S.W.2d 258, 274 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ dism’d) (<HOLDING>); C.E. Carter v. Hamlin Hosp. Dist., 538 S.W.2d
holding that the determination of the boundaries of a political subdivision of the state is a political question solely within the power prerogative and discretion of the legislature and not subject to judicial review holding that the university was not a political subdivision of the state because it had no power to tax or cause taxes to be levied recognizing that a board of elections is not a political subdivision and its members are not county officers holding that it is not within the province of any court unless expressly authorized by law to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien holding that if the legislature has granted the agency discretion over a particular matter then we review the agencys action pursuant to the deferential abuse of discretion standard  bearing in mind that the legislature determines the boundaries of that discretion