Jane Nelson in Her Off. Capacity as Sec'y of State for the State of Texas v. Jarrett Woodward, Heather Couchman, Amber Cloy, Tommie Dickinson, Travis Eubanks, Amanda Eubanks, Traci Jones, Lars Kuslich, Michelle Pique, Madelon Highsmith, & Sharon Cotton, Voters of Bexar Cnty. (Tex. App. 2025). · Go Syfert
Search
Jane Nelson in Her Off. Capacity as Sec'y of State for the State of Texas v. Jarrett Woodward, Heather Couchman, Amber Cloy, Tommie Dickinson, Travis Eubanks, Amanda Eubanks, Traci Jones, Lars Kuslich, Michelle Pique, Madelon Highsmith, & Sharon Cotton, Voters of Bexar Cnty. (Tex. App. 2025). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jane Nelson in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas
v.
Jarrett Woodward, Heather Couchman, Amber Cloy, Tommie Dickinson, Travis Eubanks, Amanda Eubanks, Traci Jones, Lars Kuslich, Michelle Pique, Madelon Highsmith, and Sharon Cotton, Voters of Bexar County
15-24-00074-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Jan 28, 2025.
Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 5%

ACCEPTED 15-24-00074-CV January 28, 2025 FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/28/2025 9:25 PM No. 15-24-00074-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK

In the Court of Appeals RECEIVED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS for the Fifteenth Judicial District 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Austin, Texas Clerk Jane Nelson, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas, Appellants, v. Jarrett Woodward, Heather Couchman, Amber Cloy, Tommie Dickinson, Travis Eubanks, Amanda Eubanks, Traci Jones, Lars Kuslich, Michelle Pique, Madelon Highsmith, and Sharon Cotton, Voters of Bexar County, Appellees, On Appeal from the 261st Judicial District Court, Travis County APPELLEE KUSLICH’S SECOND AMENDED BRIEF LARS KUSLICH Pro Se Appellee Table of Contents Table of Authorities.......................................................................3 Record References........................................................................7 Statement of the Case..................................................................7 Statement Regarding Oral Argument............................................9 Issues Presented...........................................................................9 Statement of the Facts................................................................10 Summary of the Argument..........................................................15 Standard of Review.....................................................................17 Argument.................................................................................... 17 I. Appellants Made an Illegal Proclamation to Justify Mootness. 18 II. Election Contests on Measures are Afforded an Exception to the Standing Doctrine...............................................................22 III. The Secretary of State Was Properly Served........................35 a. The Citation Requirements of Texas Election Code §§ 233.007, 233.008 Are Not Jurisdictional..................................................35 b. Appellants' Claims Regarding Defective Process Were Waived ................................................................................................. 42 c. The Diligence in Serving the Secretary of State Defeats the Deadline to Serve.....................................................................43 IV. Appellees Have Sufficiently Pled Election Contests and Any Defects Are Curable..................................................................48 Prayer.........................................................................................56 Certificate of Compliance............................................................58 Certificate of Service...................................................................59 Appendix..................................................................................... 60 Exhibit A................................................................................... 61 Exhibit B................................................................................... 68 Exhibit C................................................................................... 75

[*1]

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Contestants intend this case to be conductedunder a Level 2 discovery control plan.

I. THE PARTIES

2. Pursuant to Section 233.002 of the Texas Election Code, Contestants Allen Mark Dacus, Elizabeth C. Perez and Rev. Robert Jefferson have standing to bring an election contest in civil CertifiedDocumentNumber:48143836-Page1of5 ve The voters of the City of Houston passed Proposition on November 2, 2010.

[*2]

Subsequently, the City of Houston canvassed the results on November 15, 2010.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

8. The Local Government Code, a state statute, addresses city charters. Section 9.004 (d) prohibits an amendment from containing more than one subject. As stated above, Proposition 1 violated this statute because it concerns more than one subject. Therefore, Proposition 1 is illegal and cannot be implemented as a charter amendment.

9. Further, state law requires that a proposition be described with such definiteness and certainty that the voters are not misled.” Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1999). In this regard, the ballot should contain a description of the measure “in such language as to constitute a fair portrayal of [its] chief features . . in words of plain meaning, so that it can be understood by .

[*3][*5]

I, Marilyn Burgess, District Clerk of Harris County, Texas certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original record filed and or recorded in my office, electronically or hard copy, as it appears on this date. Witness my official hand and seal of office this January 28, 2024 Certified Document Number: 48143836 Total Pages: 5 to the extent necessary, this case should be conducted under a Level 2 discovery control plan. |

Il. RELIEF SOUGHT - RULE 47(c) 2. Contestants seek declaratory relief only, per the Texas Election Code and the common law.

Il. THE PARTIES 3. Pursuant to Section 233.002 of the Texas Election Code, Contestants Allen Mark Dacus and Elizabeth C. Perez have standing to bring an election contest in civil district court concerning a proposition (“Proposition 1”) that was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Harris

2 Table of Authorities Cases Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011)....................35 Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000)......................................51 Blue Crs. Blue Shld. of Texas v. Duenez, 201 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. 2006).....................................................................................................................31 Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1999).........................................52 Chumney v. Craig, 805 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. App. 1991)...................49,50 City of Houston v. Bryant, 516 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. App. 2017) ..........................................................................................................20,38,39,41,48 Dacus v. Parker, 383 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. App. 2012).......................27,29 Dacus v. Parker, 466 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. 2015)..................................28,30 Fin. Comm'n of Tex. v. Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2013) ....................................................................................................................24,25,29 Garcia v. Ennis, 554 S.W.3d 209 (Tex. App. 2018)..............................36 Gonzalez v. Villarreal, 251 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App. 2008)..................55 Goodman v. Wise, 620 S.W.2d 857 (Tex. App. 1981).........................50 Green v. Reyes, 836 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. App. 1992).............................50 Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012)............17
3 In Re Marriage of M.C., 65 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App. 2001)..................51 In re Morris, No. 23-0111 (Tex. Mar. 17, 2023)...........................31,32,33 Jones v. Turner, 646 S.W.3d 319 (Tex. 2022)........................................24 LEJ Development Corporation and L.E. Jowell, Jr. v. Southwest Bank, 407 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. App. 2013)...............................................42 Mansell v. Ins. Co. of the W, 203 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. App. 2006) 36,37 McCoy v. McCoy, No. 02-17-00275-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 15, 2018) 42 Medeles v. Nunez, 923 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. App. 1996)........................36 Meyers v. JDC/Firethorne, Ltd., 548 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2018)..........29 Moore Ex Rel. Moore v. Elektro-Mobil Technik GmbH, 874 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. App. 1994)....................................................................................43 Morris v. Morris, 759 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. App. 1988).............................20 Perez v. Turner, 629 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App. 2019).............................26 Pike v. Tex. EMC Mgmt., 610 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2020).............22,23,31 PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera ex rel. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012).............................................................................................................21,37 Proulx v. Wells, 235 S.W.3d 213, 215 (Tex. 2007)..........................45,47 Stephens, Zena Collins, PD-1032-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)..........21 Summersett v. Jaiyeola, 438 S.W.3d 84 (Tex. App. 2013)................43 TAC Americas, Inc. v. Boothe, 94 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App. 2002)....36 4 Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993)..................................................................................................................30 Texas Dept. Parks Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) ..............................................................................................................................51 Tex. Med. Res. v. Molina Healthcare of Tex., 59 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. 2023)..................................................................................................................24 Tex. St. Univ. v. Tanner, No. 22-0291 (Tex. May 3, 2024)......44,45,48 Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1991)........................................20 Statutes Tex. Elec. Code § 123.061.............................................................................53 Tex. Elec. Code § 123.062.............................................................................53 Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003........................................................................35,49 Tex. Elec. Code § 221.004.............................................................................37 Tex. Elec. Code § 221.006.............................................................................19 Tex. Elec. Code § 221.009.............................................................................54 Tex. Elec. Code § 233.007........................................................................13,40 Tex. Elec. Code § 233.008.............................................................................13 Tex. Elec. Code § 233.014..............................................................18,19,44,50 Constitutional Provisions
5 TEX. CONST. art. II § 1.....................................................................................22 TEX. CONST. art. V § 1....................................................................................21 Rules Tex. R. Civ. P. 99..........................................................................................13,47 Tex. R. Civ. P. 118........................................................................................20,41 Tex. R. Civ. P. 120.............................................................................................43 Other Authorities Voting Systems by County.......................................................................53,54
6 Record References The terminology described in the Record References section included in the Appellants' Brief will also be used in this brief. Statement of the Case Nature of the Case: The November 2023 election included fourteen proposed constitutional amendments, including Propositions 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. CR.96–99. Shortly after the election, Appellees Amber Cloy and Tommie Dickinson (collectively, “Dickinson”), Madelon Highsmith, Traci Jones, and Sharon Cotton (collectively, “Highsmith”), Lars Kuslich (“Kuslich”), and Michelle Pique, Shannon Huggins, and Sharon Jorolan (collectively, “Pique”) (hereinafter referred together as “Appellees”) filed suits, which were later amended, that are both election contests and challenges to the constitutionality of certain statutes. All contests claim that the electronic voting systems used in the November 2023 election were not legally certified, which would mean that all votes cast by over 2.5 million voters in Texas were illegal. Dickinson Suppl. CR.5–21 (Dickinson’s Orig. Pet.); Highsmith Suppl. CR.4–21 (Highsmith’s Orig. Pet.); CR.778- 809 (Kuslich’s Amended Pet.); Pique Suppl. CR.6–27 (Pique’s Orig. Pet.). These contests were acknowledged by Governor Abbott on November 27, 2023 and used as the reason why an official result for each proposition would not be made. CR.95. Despite this, Governor Abbott certified the election canvass and proclaimed the 7 propositions to be part of the Texas Constitution on December 4, 2023. CR.355-59, 614-15. Course of Appellant Jane Nelson, the Texas Secretary of State (“Appellant” or the “Secretary”), Proceedings: filed amended Pleas to the Jurisdiction on December 15, 2023, asserting that Appellees’ suits had been rendered moot, that they lacked standing, and that they failed to plead a viable election contest. CR.82–616 (Kuslich plea); Dickinson Suppl. CR.163–697 (Dickinson plea); Highsmith Suppl. CR.166–700 (Highsmith plea); Pique Suppl. CR.224–760 (Pique plea). The trial court held hearings on Appellants’ pleas on February 16, 2024 (Highsmith), February 22, 2024 (Pique), and March 28, 2024 (Kuslich). Highsmith RR.1–44; Pique RR.1– 55; Kuslich RR.1–29. Pique Suppl. CR.161– 64. Appellants’ Plea to the Jurisdiction concerning Dickinson’s claims was heard by submission. Additionally, the trial court fully consolidated Appellees’ suits on April 30, 2024, which is why this appeal arrives in this odd form. CR.839–41. Trial Court: 261st Judicial District Court, Travis County The Honorable Jessica Mangrum Trial Court The trial court denied Appellants’ plea as to Kuslich’s claims on April 29, 2024 (CR.833), Disposition: and denied Appellants’ pleas as to Dickinson, Highsmith, and Pique’s claims on April 30, 2024. Supp. CR.4–6. The Secretary filed a notice of appeal on May 15, 2024.
7 The voters of the City of Houston passed Proposition on November 2, 2010. Subsequently, the City of Houston canvassed the results on November 15, 2010. V. CAUSES OF ACTION
8 The Local Government Code, a state statute, addresses city charters. Section 9.004 (d) prohibits an amendment from containing more than one subject. As stated above, Proposition 1 violated this statute because it concerns more than one subject. Therefore, Proposition 1 is illegal and cannot be implemented as a charter amendment.
9 Further, state law requires that a proposition be described with such definiteness and certainty that the voters are not misled.” Blum v. Lanier, 997 S,W.2d 259 (Tex. 1999), In this regard, the ballot should contain a description of the measure “in such language as to constitute a fair portrayal of [its] chief features .. . in words of plain meaning, so that it can be understood by persons entitled to vote.” Wright v. Board of Trustees of Tatum Indep, School Dist., 520 8.W.2d 787 (Tex. Civ. App—tTyler 1975, CertifiedDocumentNumber:47222447-Page3of5 writ dism’d). As such, “a ballot ada describes a proposed amendment if it gives fair notice to the voter of average intelligence by directing him to the amendment so that he can discern its identity and distinguish it from other propositions on the ballot.” Hardy v. Hannah, 849 8.W.2d 355 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, writ denied). Proposition 1 clearly did not do this. Proposition 1’s ballot language did not adequately describe what the electorate was actually being asked to vote on. Accordingly, the ballot language does not accurately describe the object and effect of Proposition 1, causing the voters to be intentionally misled. 10,‘ Finally, Proposition 1 violates State Law in at least two respects. First, in accordance with TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT Cope § 552.045(c), the governing body was required to hold a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance. The City of Houston did not do this, thus Proposition 1 violates state law and is illegal. Second, as required by TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE § 552.049, the income from a drainage utility system must be segregated and completely identifiable in municipal accounts. Again, the City of Houston has failed to comply with this state statute. Therefore, Proposition 1 should be declared illegal.
10 In 1888, the Texas Supreme Court held that a proposition must “substantially submit[] the question . . . with such definiteness and certainty that the voters are not misled.” Reynolds Land & Cattle Co. v. McCabe, 72 Tex. 57, 12 S.W. 165, 165 (Tex. 1888); accord Dacus v. Parker, 58 Tex. Sup. J. 1076, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 548 (Tex. June 12, 2015) (stating “[i]n 1888, we held that the proposition must ‘substantially submit[] the question . . . with such definiteness and certainty that the voters are not misled’”). In Dacus, the Texas Supreme Court clarified this age-old common law standard, as follows: ... Simply put, the proposition must “substantially submit[] the question” with “definiteness and certainty.” See Reynolds Land & Cattle Co., 12 S.W. at 165. In other words, the ballot must identify the measure by its chief features, showing its character and purpose. See Wright, 520 S.W.2d at 792; Turner, 201 S.W.2d at 91. Even the Election Code suggests that propositions “describe” measures. See TEX. ELEC. CODE § 274.001(a), (b) (requiring the secretary of state at times to word propositions “describ[ing]” proposed state constitutional amendments). CertifiedDocumentNumber:67311052-Page3of6 Inan election contest challenging the sufficiencyof the ballot description, the issue is whether the ballot “substantially submits the question . . . with such definiteness and certainty that the voters are not misled.” Reynolds Land & Cattle Co., 12 S.W. at 165. An inadequate description may fail to do that in either of two ways. First, it may affirmatively misrepresent the measure’s character and purpose or its chief features. Second, it may mislead the voters by omitting certain chief features that reflect its character and purpose. The common law standard thus requires that the ballot identify the measure for what it is, and a description that does either of the foregoing fails to comply with the standard. The common law safeguards the election, preventing voters from being misled and ensuring that the ballot substantially submits the measure. 2015 Tex. LEXIS 548, at *10-11.
11 Contestants here claim that Proposition 1—the ballot language described above in paragraph 7—failed to meet the common law standards that it must “substantially submit[] the question” with “definiteness and certainty” and “must identify the measure by its chief features, showing its character and purpose.” Notably, the measure published in the newspaper, as required by law, mentioned drainage charges as a key funding source, but the drainage charges were not mentioned in the ballot language at all. Specifically, Contestants here claim precisely what the Texas Supreme Court in Dacus has already held with respect to the ballot language for Proposition 1, as follows: ... [T]he proposition in this case . .did not mention the drainage charges to be . imposed on most real property owners across the city. Because the proposition omitted a chief feature—part of the character and purpose—ofthe measure, it did not substantially submit the measure with such definiteness and certainty that voters would not be misled. Accordingly, the proposition was inadequate .... [W]e base our decision solely on the failure of the proposition to present the measure’s chief features and its character and purpose. Because the ballot omitted a chief feature of the measure, it did not substantially submit the measure with such definiteness and certainty that voters would not be misled. The City did not adequately describe the chief features—the character and purpose—ofthe charter amendment on the ballot. By omitting the drainage charges, CertifiedDocumentNumber:67311052-Page4of6 it failed to substantially submit the measure with such definiteness and certainty that voters would not be misled. 2015 Tex. LEXIS 548, at *19-21 (footnote omitted).
12 Based upon the foregoing, and pursuant to Chapter 233 of the Texas Election Code and applicable law, Contestants seek an order from the Court declaring the Proposition 1 election void, as a matter of law. VII. CONCLUSION
13 For the reasons detailed above, Contestants respectfully request that upon final hearing, this Court sustain this Election Contest and declare that Proposition 1 is void, as a matter of law, as if the election had not been held’ and such other and further relief to which Contestants may show themselves to be justly entitled. Respéctfully submitted, alieria Tower II 5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: 713-977-8686 Facsimile: 713-977-5395 ATTORNEYS FOR CONTESTANTS | See Tex. Elec. Code § 233.012(a) (stating “[t]he effect of a void election . . . is the same as if the election had not been held”). CertifiedDocumentNumber:67311052-Page5of6 ANDY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. William “Andy” Taylor State Bar No. 19727600 [email protected] 2669 Highway 36 S., #288 Brenham, Texas 77833 Telephone: 713-222-1817 Facsimile: 713-222-1855 CO-COUNSEL FOR CONTESTANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has on this the 5th day of October, 2015, been delivered in compliance with Rules 21 and 21A of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to: Via Facsimile and E-file Donna Edmundson City Attorney Judith L. Ramsey Chief, General Litigation Section James M. Corbett Sr. Assistant City Attorney CITY OF HOUSTON LEGAL DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 368 Houston, TX 77001-0368 900 Bagby, 4th Floor (832) 393-6491 — Telephone (832) 393-6259 — Facsimile [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Dylan B. Russell Dylan B. Russell CertifiedDocumentNumber:67311052-Page6of6 I, Marilyn Burgess, District Clerk of Harris County, Texas certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original record filed and or recorded in my office, electronically or hard copy, as it appears on this date. Witness my official hand and seal of office this January 27, 2025 Certified Document Number: 67311052 Total Pages: 6 Mailp~ Eur Marilyn Burgess, DISTRICT CLERK HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS In accordance with Texas Government Code 51.301 and 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal please e-mail [email protected] Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Envelope ID: 96716257 Filing Code Description: Motion Filing Description: OPPOSED SECOND MOTION TO AMEND APPELLEE KUSLICH???S BRIEF Status as of 1/29/2025 7:11 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Shannon Huggins [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT William Wassdorf [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Michelle Pique [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Elena Eydelman-Natividad [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Stephanie Criscione [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Sharon Jorolan [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Laura Hendrix [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Jarrett Woodward [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Heather Couchman [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Carrisa Stiles [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM ERROR Tommie Dickinson [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Travis Eubanks [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Madelon Highsmith [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Lars Kuslich [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Amber Cloy [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Traci Jones [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Sharon Cotton [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT Amanda Eubanks [email protected] 1/28/2025 9:25:24 PM SENT