If the prospective candidate lost a party’s nomination in the primary, Judge Hodges’s construction of section 162.015(a) would affirmatively authorize the prospective candidate to seek the same office as a candidate for another political party. That interpretation is antithetical to the statute’s most obvious and laudable purpose, which is to prevent candidates from having more than one bite at the apple in a single election year by precluding a primary candidate from running in the general election for the same office as an independent, a write-in candidate, or a candidate for any other political party that nominates its candidates by primary election. See Tex. Eleo.Code § 162.015(a), (b); see also Nat’l Comm, of the U.S. Taxpayers Party v. Garza, 924 F.Supp. 71, 74—75 (W.D.Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>). Although the statute’s “sore loser” aspect is
holding that public policy must be evidenced by constitutional or statutory provisions holding that the soreloser provisions of section 162015 are reasonable nondiscriminatory and constitutional holding that such provisions are valid holding that contract provisions controlled over provisions of plan for augmentation statute section 37923053 holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa