Preview
FILED
4/10/2023 12:00 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Rosa Delacerda DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-03562
J RMAR “JJ” JEFFERSON IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Plaintiffs,
v 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CITY OF DALLAS, BILIRAE
JOHNSON, in her official capacity as
City Secretary for the City of Dallas.
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
COMES NOW, Jrmar “JJ” Jefferson (“Plaintiff’ or “Jefferson”) pro se, and
respectfully moves this Court for reconsideration of its order’s entered on March 29,
2023 & April 3, 2023, and in support thereof states as follows:
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiff obtained a candidate packet on January 20th, which included
instructions on submitting signatures and application materials in order to be
placed on the ballot for the Dallas Mayoral election.
2. On January 20th, Plaintiff submitted an initial signature at approximately
5:59 pm.
3. On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff submitted all required applications and
petitions on time.
4. On February 18, 2023, Defendants reviewed and inspected Plaintiffs
documents, challenged signatures, and ultimately disqualified Plaintiff from
the ballot.
5. On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff received a disqualified Letter from
Defendant’s.
6. On February 22, Plaintiff filed a request to appeal the Secretary's
disqualification.
7. On March 1, Plaintiff sent an intent to sue notice to Defendants.
8. On March l6, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in District Court.
9. Plaintiff objects to the TRO and Injunctions application withdrawal order
and maintains that Plaintiff did not consent to the Withdrawal of the TRO and
Injunctions application. Neither was plaintiff fully informed until after
Plaintiff left the court room.
10.Plaintiff argues that tJefferson complied with all applicable provisions of the
Texas Election Code and the candidate packet received from theDefendent
City of Dallas Secretary Office.
11.Plaintiff alleges that the Secretary breached her statutory obligation under §
141.036 to preserve applications and petitions for two years, until after
Plaintiff was disqualified from the ballot.
l2.Plaintiff contends that the Secretary failed to perform her ministerial duties
as required by § 141.034 (a) (c) and that Plaintiff was denied the due process
of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
13.Plaintiff alleges that the Secretary failed to perform her ministerial duty
under section § 141.063 to validate signature petitions circulated lawfully.
14.Plaintiff maintains that the Secretary violated § 141.101 by committing the
offense of Coercion Against Candidacy Prohibited while performing her
ministerial duties.
15.Plaintiff argues that the Secretary failed to perform her ministerial duty
under§ 141.037.
16.A Temporary Restraining Order was heard on March 21, 2023, and an
Evidentiary Hearing was scheduled for March 29, 2023, by the District
Judge on March 21, 2023.
17 .Plaintiff contends that the court erred in denying a jury trial pursuant to
section § 37.007 and in denying a preliminary injunction prior to the hearing
of evidence.
18. On April 3, 2023, a Temporary Restraining Order hearing was held. Case
was ruled mooted.
19.Plaintiff alleges that the court erred in determining that the Plaintiffs request
for a temporary restraining order was moot, without proper consideration of
the pleadings and evidence.
20.Plaintiff argues that the court erred in denying a request for a jury trial
during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing.
21.Plaintiff maintains that the court made a decision that was not based on facts
and failed to consider the availability of evidence that was neither presented
nor considered.
22.Plaintiff contends that the court failed to consider the need to correct an
obvious legal error or prevent manifest injustice.
23.Plaintiff argues that the court failed to consider the power of courts to render
judgment, form, and effect in accordance with § 37.003, grant subject matter
relief under section § 37 .004, and issue injunctions under Section § 273.081.
II.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
24.Discovery should be conducted under Level 3 in accordance with a tailored
discovery control plan under Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
(“TRCP”).
III.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
25.Plaintiff seeks only nonmonetary injunctive relief and attorneys fees & cost.
IV.
PARTIES
26.Plaintiff Jrmar “JJ”
Jefferson is an individual whose address is 3700 Reese
Drive, Dallas, Texas 75210.
27.Defendant The City of Dallas is a municipality and can be served at 1500
Marilla, 5th Floor, Room 5D South, Dallas, Texas 75201. Dallas has been
served with process.
28.Defendant Bilirae Johnson is the City Secretary for the City of Dallas, who is
being sued in her official capacity and who can be served with process at the
City Secretary’s Office located at 1500 Marilla, 5th Floor, Room 5D South,
Dallas, Texas 75201 or wherever she may be found. The Secretary has been
served with process.
V.
JURISDICTION
29.This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Tex. Elec. Code §
173.081. See supra note 1 (district court has jurisdiction to issue injunction
to remedy a harm under the Texas Election Code “to prevent the violation
from continuing or occurring”).
VI.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
30.0n March 29, 2023, this Court entered an order denying Plaintiff” s
Motion for Application for a Temporary Injunction to place Plaintiffs
name on the ballot for the Dallas Mayoral election. On April 2, 2023, this
Court entered an order denying Plaintiff’ s motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Injunction to place Plaintiff’s name on the ballot for the Dallas
Mayoral election.
31Jefferson respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its orders for
the following reasons:
32. "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the
right with impunity" Shuttlesworth V Birmingham, 373 USs 262
33."Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384
US 436, 491.
34."The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to
be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis V. Wechsler, 263 US
22, at 24
35.The Court erroneously failed to grant Plaintiffs motion for a temporary
restraining order to place Plaintiffs name on the ballot. In re Meyer, 275
S.W.3d 830 (Tex. App.—E1Paso 2008, no pet.).), which held that courts
have the authority to issue temporary restraining orders or temporary
injunctions to prevent a violation of election laws or to preserve a
candidate's right to appear on the ballot.
36.Plaintiff submitted the correct number of signatures to get on the ballot, The
Defendant failed in ministerial duties to Preservation of Application per Sec.
141.036, The Defendant only filed 52 pages of petitions with the Application
on the record on February 17, 2023. The Defendant failed in ministerial
duties to count and validate all signatures per Texas Election Code,141.032.
37.0n April 3, Plaintiff newly discovered evidence not previously available.
Defendants delivered in public information request portal the remaining 57
petition pages not entered into the record. Defendant only delivered and
validated 52 petition pages on February l8 , 2023. A rejection letter
was delivered on February 21, 2023 informing Plaintiff that he did not
qualify for placement on the ballot. The Defendant Bilierae Johnson said I
only had 288 Valid Signatures. According to Sec. 141.032 Review of
Application unless the petition is challenge, the authority is only required to
review the petition for facial compliance with applicable requirements as to
form, content, and procedure. Defendant is held to the 4 corner rule and 488
signatures on the 52 pages of petition pages would have been enough to meet
the 404-signature requirement,required by the Defendant ,City of Dallas.
38. This is Election Fraud for Defendant to interfere with an election.The
City of Dallas declared that Plaintiff did not receive the minimum
number of signatures required for ballot access thus Plaintiff is
disqualified. (Council Place 15 required 404 signatures)
39.Plaintiff asked the court to prevent a manifested injustice. The Texas Election
Code, Sec 141.004 says that An Application is required to be entitled to your
name being on the ballot. Defendant accepted Plaintiff application on
February 17,2023. No one or before the 50th day before election day
challenged Plaintiff Petitions per Sec. 141.034, Limitation on Challenge of
Application. Plaintiff is entitled to be on the Ballot as a matter of law.
40.Defendant, an election official created, alter, modified, waived, and suspend
Election procedure mandated by law and rules in a manner not expressly
authorized by The Texas Election Code. Unlawful altering of election process
to deny Plaintiff’ s right to appear on the ballot.
41.Defendant knowingly and intentionally made an effort to Violate Texas
Election Code Sec. 276.013 (5)(6) (1)
6
41 .Defendant knowingly and intentionally violated Sec 276.018. Perjury in
Connection With Certain Election Procedures.
42.The Court's decision to not honor the temporary restraining order or the
injunction was contrary to the weight of the evidence and the law. Texas
Election Code § 141.034 specifically provides for the availability of
temporary restraining orders or temporary injunctions to preserve a
candidate's right to appear on the ballot. The Court's decision not to honor the
temporary restraining order or the injunction, and instead allow the ballots to
be printed without Plaintiffs name on them, was contrary to the law and
unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiffs campaign.
43.The Court's previous statement in the hearing that Plaintiff needed an
attorney was inappropriate and demonstrated a bias against Plaintiff. The
Court's responsibility is to remain impartial and make decisions based on the
facts and the law, not to provide legal advice or favor one party over another.
44.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. The Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1 declares that the proper objective of rules of
civil procedure is to obtain a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of
the rights of litigants under established principles of substantive law. Plaintiff
does not understand, nor agree, nor consent to a withdraw of any application
without hearing all claims in all applications filed with this court. Plaintiff is
entitled to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, Right to
Association under the First Amendment.
45.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. The Texas
Constitution, Article 1, Bill of Rights, Sec. 3 established and are declared
Equal Rights, Sec 3a, Declares and Establish equality under the law. Sec 15
declares and establish Right of Trial by Jury. Sec 19, declares and establish,
Deprivation of Life, Liberty, Property, Etc. By Due Course of Law.
46.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact ,Plaintiff
challenge of opponent’s application according to State law. The record shows
a purported 161 pages of signatures. Only 96 pages were Delivered to
Plaintiff and Seven pages were duplicates. Eric Johnson only turn in 89
pages of signatures. It is Willful misconduct by the City of Dallas to deny
access for inspection of original documents held in the Administrator’s
custody. Plaintiff was deprived of right as a candidate to challenge Eric
Johnson's Petitions. Bilierae Johnson the filling Authority denied Plaintiff
due process.
47.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact.
"Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are
usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the
rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in
authority." Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13. Plaintiff
was given a verdict without a trial. All codes, rules, and regulations are
unconstitutional and lack due process. " Rodriques V. Ray Donavan (U.S.
Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).
48.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. “The State
cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado V. California, 110 U.S. 516.
Plaintiff was entitled to be on the ballot because Defendant accept the
application on February 17, 2023, and no candidate on or before one the 50th
day Challenges Jrmar” JJ” Jefferson Petition signatures.
49.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. United, 304
U.S. 144 (1938), it indicated that it would pay special attention to legislation
“which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to
bring about repeal of undesirable legislation . . . to more exacting scrutiny”
than other types of legislation.
50.To correct a clear or manifest error of law or fact; Plaintiff’ s right to run for
public office and is linked to freedom of association. The first amendments'
arguments for the right of a candidate to appear on the ballot are generally
tied to the rights of freedom of expression and association. Protected political
speech under the First Amendment would logically appear to apply to ballot
access. In Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1969), the Supreme Court
accordingly struck down an Ohio law that made it difficult for electors of
presidential third-party candidates to be listed on the ballot. Laws that
affect candidates always have at least some theoretical, correlative effect on
voters.”
51.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. Plaintiff
did not get a full adjudication of all claims. In Trahan V. King, 845 F. Supp.
258 (S.D. TeX. 1994), the court held that injunctive relief may be appropriate
if there are disputed issues of fact regarding the validity of a candidate's
application.
52.To correct a clear or manifest error of law or fact, In Burdick V. Takushi,
504 U.S. 428 (1992), the Supreme Court held that injunctive relief may be
appropriate to protect the integrity of the electoral process, even if it imposes
some burden on the right to vote.
53.Breach of duty to preserve application materials: In re S.B., 354 S.W.3d 669,
676 (Tex. 2011) (holding that election officials have a duty to preserve
application materials)
54.Eagle Forum of TeX. V. Reyna, 797 F.3d 839, 847 (5th Cir. 2015) (stating
that the preservation of election documents is a vital part of the election
process)
55.Denial of due process: Phillips V. King, 874 F.3d 1023, 1028 (5th Cir. 2017)
(holding that denial of due process in election context may Violate the
Fourteenth Amendment)
56.Failure to validate signature petitions: Ellis V. Hill, 829 F.2d 673, 676 (5th
Cir. 1987) (stating that election officials have a duty to validate signature
petitions in accordance with statutory requirements)
57.Coercion Against Candidacy Prohibited: Tex. Elec. Code § 141.101
(prohibiting coercion against candidacy)
58.Fai1ure to perform ministerial duties: In re Miller, 412 S.W.3d 207, 214
(Tex. App. - E1 Paso 2013, no pet.) (Holding that election officials have a
ministerial duty to perform their duties under the election code)
59.Need for a jury trial: In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Tex.
1998) (recognizing right to a jury trial in certain types of cases, including
claims for injunctive relief)
60.Power of courts to grant subject matter relief: Tex. CiV. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 37.004 (granting courts the power to grant injunctive relief in certain
circumstances)
61 .Mootness: Tex. R. App. P. 53.2(1) (providing that an appellate court may
still consider issues that are "moot" if they are capable of repetition and
likely to evade review)
VII.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court set
aside its previous order and grant Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining
order to place Plaintiffs name on the ballot or take such other action to fix the
record as is just and proper under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, Jefferson respectfully requests that the Court grant this
motion for reconsideration, set aside its previous orders, and take such other action
as is just and proper under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jrmar Jefferson prays that the Court grant him
judgment against Defendants on his claims, enter the Temporary Restraining Order
and set a hearing for Injunctive relief requested herein, grant him his reasonable
10
attorneys’ fees , pro se fee's and costs, and grant him all other and further relief to
which he may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jrmar Jefferson
Jrrnar “J J ” Jefferson
3700 Reese Drive
Dallas, Texas 75210
Tel: (903) 650-0069
Email: voteforjj.com
Prose
DECLARATION OF JRMAR JEFFERSON
My name is Jrrnar Jefferson. My address is 3700 Reese Drive, Dallas, Texas 7 5210,
and my date of birth is October 25, 1980. I am competent to make the following
declaration: I hereby verify that the factual allegations contained in the foregoing
Motion to Reconsider are true and correct Within the best of my knowledge and
recollection.
Date: April 9, 2023
/s/ Jrmar Jefferson
J rmar Jefferson
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Third Verified Amended Petition
and Application for Injunctive Relief on all counsel of record in this case via EFile
Texas on this 9th day of April ,2023.
/s/ Jrmar Jefferson
J rmar Jefferson
11
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: 74457553
Filing Code Description: Motion - Miscellanous
Filing Description: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Status as of 4/10/2023 11:50 AM CST
Associated Case Party: JRMARJJEFFERSON
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Paul Davis paul@fireduptxlawyer.com 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT
Jrmar Jefferson jrmarjefferson@gmail.com 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: CITY OF DALLAS
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Lilia Villegas lilia.villegas@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT
Lori Plaster lori.plaster@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT
Stacy Rodriguez stacy.rodriguez@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: BILIERAE JOHNSON
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Andrew Spaniol andrew.spaniol@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT
Kathleen Fones kathleen.fones@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 4/10/2023 12:00 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Rosa Delacerda DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-03562 J RMAR “JJ” JEFFERSON IN THE DISTRICT COURT §§§§§§§§§§§§§§ Plaintiffs, v 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CITY OF DALLAS, BILIRAE JOHNSON, in her official capacity as City Secretary for the City of Dallas. Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION COMES NOW, Jrmar “JJ” Jefferson (“Plaintiff’ or “Jefferson”) pro se, and respectfully moves this Court for reconsideration of its order’s entered on March 29, 2023 & April 3, 2023, and in support thereof states as follows: I. FACTS OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiff obtained a candidate packet on January 20th, which included instructions on submitting signatures and application materials in order to be placed on the ballot for the Dallas Mayoral election. 2. On January 20th, Plaintiff submitted an initial signature at approximately 5:59 pm. 3. On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff submitted all required applications and petitions on time. 4. On February 18, 2023, Defendants reviewed and inspected Plaintiffs documents, challenged signatures, and ultimately disqualified Plaintiff from the ballot. 5. On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff received a disqualified Letter from Defendant’s. 6. On February 22, Plaintiff filed a request to appeal the Secretary's disqualification. 7. On March 1, Plaintiff sent an intent to sue notice to Defendants. 8. On March l6, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in District Court. 9. Plaintiff objects to the TRO and Injunctions application withdrawal order and maintains that Plaintiff did not consent to the Withdrawal of the TRO and Injunctions application. Neither was plaintiff fully informed until after Plaintiff left the court room. 10.Plaintiff argues that tJefferson complied with all applicable provisions of the Texas Election Code and the candidate packet received from theDefendent City of Dallas Secretary Office. 11.Plaintiff alleges that the Secretary breached her statutory obligation under § 141.036 to preserve applications and petitions for two years, until after Plaintiff was disqualified from the ballot. l2.Plaintiff contends that the Secretary failed to perform her ministerial duties as required by § 141.034 (a) (c) and that Plaintiff was denied the due process of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. 13.Plaintiff alleges that the Secretary failed to perform her ministerial duty under section § 141.063 to validate signature petitions circulated lawfully. 14.Plaintiff maintains that the Secretary violated § 141.101 by committing the offense of Coercion Against Candidacy Prohibited while performing her ministerial duties. 15.Plaintiff argues that the Secretary failed to perform her ministerial duty under§ 141.037. 16.A Temporary Restraining Order was heard on March 21, 2023, and an Evidentiary Hearing was scheduled for March 29, 2023, by the District Judge on March 21, 2023. 17 .Plaintiff contends that the court erred in denying a jury trial pursuant to section § 37.007 and in denying a preliminary injunction prior to the hearing of evidence. 18. On April 3, 2023, a Temporary Restraining Order hearing was held. Case was ruled mooted. 19.Plaintiff alleges that the court erred in determining that the Plaintiffs request for a temporary restraining order was moot, without proper consideration of the pleadings and evidence. 20.Plaintiff argues that the court erred in denying a request for a jury trial during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing. 21.Plaintiff maintains that the court made a decision that was not based on facts and failed to consider the availability of evidence that was neither presented nor considered. 22.Plaintiff contends that the court failed to consider the need to correct an obvious legal error or prevent manifest injustice. 23.Plaintiff argues that the court failed to consider the power of courts to render judgment, form, and effect in accordance with § 37.003, grant subject matter relief under section § 37 .004, and issue injunctions under Section § 273.081. II. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 24.Discovery should be conducted under Level 3 in accordance with a tailored discovery control plan under Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (“TRCP”). III. CLAIM FOR RELIEF 25.Plaintiff seeks only nonmonetary injunctive relief and attorneys fees & cost. IV. PARTIES 26.Plaintiff Jrmar “JJ” Jefferson is an individual whose address is 3700 Reese Drive, Dallas, Texas 75210. 27.Defendant The City of Dallas is a municipality and can be served at 1500 Marilla, 5th Floor, Room 5D South, Dallas, Texas 75201. Dallas has been served with process. 28.Defendant Bilirae Johnson is the City Secretary for the City of Dallas, who is being sued in her official capacity and who can be served with process at the City Secretary’s Office located at 1500 Marilla, 5th Floor, Room 5D South, Dallas, Texas 75201 or wherever she may be found. The Secretary has been served with process. V. JURISDICTION 29.This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Tex. Elec. Code § 173.081. See supra note 1 (district court has jurisdiction to issue injunction to remedy a harm under the Texas Election Code “to prevent the violation from continuing or occurring”). VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 30.0n March 29, 2023, this Court entered an order denying Plaintiff” s Motion for Application for a Temporary Injunction to place Plaintiffs name on the ballot for the Dallas Mayoral election. On April 2, 2023, this Court entered an order denying Plaintiff’ s motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction to place Plaintiff’s name on the ballot for the Dallas Mayoral election. 31Jefferson respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its orders for the following reasons: 32. "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity" Shuttlesworth V Birmingham, 373 USs 262 33."Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. 34."The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis V. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 35.The Court erroneously failed to grant Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order to place Plaintiffs name on the ballot. In re Meyer, 275 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. App.—E1Paso 2008, no pet.).), which held that courts have the authority to issue temporary restraining orders or temporary injunctions to prevent a violation of election laws or to preserve a candidate's right to appear on the ballot. 36.Plaintiff submitted the correct number of signatures to get on the ballot, The Defendant failed in ministerial duties to Preservation of Application per Sec. 141.036, The Defendant only filed 52 pages of petitions with the Application on the record on February 17, 2023. The Defendant failed in ministerial duties to count and validate all signatures per Texas Election Code,141.032. 37.0n April 3, Plaintiff newly discovered evidence not previously available. Defendants delivered in public information request portal the remaining 57 petition pages not entered into the record. Defendant only delivered and validated 52 petition pages on February l8 , 2023. A rejection letter was delivered on February 21, 2023 informing Plaintiff that he did not qualify for placement on the ballot. The Defendant Bilierae Johnson said I only had 288 Valid Signatures. According to Sec. 141.032 Review of Application unless the petition is challenge, the authority is only required to review the petition for facial compliance with applicable requirements as to form, content, and procedure. Defendant is held to the 4 corner rule and 488 signatures on the 52 pages of petition pages would have been enough to meet the 404-signature requirement,required by the Defendant ,City of Dallas. 38. This is Election Fraud for Defendant to interfere with an election.The City of Dallas declared that Plaintiff did not receive the minimum number of signatures required for ballot access thus Plaintiff is disqualified. (Council Place 15 required 404 signatures) 39.Plaintiff asked the court to prevent a manifested injustice. The Texas Election Code, Sec 141.004 says that An Application is required to be entitled to your name being on the ballot. Defendant accepted Plaintiff application on February 17,2023. No one or before the 50th day before election day challenged Plaintiff Petitions per Sec. 141.034, Limitation on Challenge of Application. Plaintiff is entitled to be on the Ballot as a matter of law. 40.Defendant, an election official created, alter, modified, waived, and suspend Election procedure mandated by law and rules in a manner not expressly authorized by The Texas Election Code. Unlawful altering of election process to deny Plaintiff’ s right to appear on the ballot. 41.Defendant knowingly and intentionally made an effort to Violate Texas Election Code Sec. 276.013 (5)(6) (1) 6 41 .Defendant knowingly and intentionally violated Sec 276.018. Perjury in Connection With Certain Election Procedures. 42.The Court's decision to not honor the temporary restraining order or the injunction was contrary to the weight of the evidence and the law. Texas Election Code § 141.034 specifically provides for the availability of temporary restraining orders or temporary injunctions to preserve a candidate's right to appear on the ballot. The Court's decision not to honor the temporary restraining order or the injunction, and instead allow the ballots to be printed without Plaintiffs name on them, was contrary to the law and unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiffs campaign. 43.The Court's previous statement in the hearing that Plaintiff needed an attorney was inappropriate and demonstrated a bias against Plaintiff. The Court's responsibility is to remain impartial and make decisions based on the facts and the law, not to provide legal advice or favor one party over another. 44.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1 declares that the proper objective of rules of civil procedure is to obtain a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of litigants under established principles of substantive law. Plaintiff does not understand, nor agree, nor consent to a withdraw of any application without hearing all claims in all applications filed with this court. Plaintiff is entitled to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, Right to Association under the First Amendment. 45.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. The Texas Constitution, Article 1, Bill of Rights, Sec. 3 established and are declared Equal Rights, Sec 3a, Declares and Establish equality under the law. Sec 15 declares and establish Right of Trial by Jury. Sec 19, declares and establish, Deprivation of Life, Liberty, Property, Etc. By Due Course of Law. 46.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact ,Plaintiff challenge of opponent’s application according to State law. The record shows a purported 161 pages of signatures. Only 96 pages were Delivered to Plaintiff and Seven pages were duplicates. Eric Johnson only turn in 89 pages of signatures. It is Willful misconduct by the City of Dallas to deny access for inspection of original documents held in the Administrator’s custody. Plaintiff was deprived of right as a candidate to challenge Eric Johnson's Petitions. Bilierae Johnson the filling Authority denied Plaintiff due process. 47.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. "Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority." Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13. Plaintiff was given a verdict without a trial. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lack due process. " Rodriques V. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). 48.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. “The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado V. California, 110 U.S. 516. Plaintiff was entitled to be on the ballot because Defendant accept the application on February 17, 2023, and no candidate on or before one the 50th day Challenges Jrmar” JJ” Jefferson Petition signatures. 49.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. United, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), it indicated that it would pay special attention to legislation “which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation . . . to more exacting scrutiny” than other types of legislation. 50.To correct a clear or manifest error of law or fact; Plaintiff’ s right to run for public office and is linked to freedom of association. The first amendments' arguments for the right of a candidate to appear on the ballot are generally tied to the rights of freedom of expression and association. Protected political speech under the First Amendment would logically appear to apply to ballot access. In Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1969), the Supreme Court accordingly struck down an Ohio law that made it difficult for electors of presidential third-party candidates to be listed on the ballot. Laws that affect candidates always have at least some theoretical, correlative effect on voters.” 51.The Court's prior order was incorrect as a matter of law and fact. Plaintiff did not get a full adjudication of all claims. In Trahan V. King, 845 F. Supp. 258 (S.D. TeX. 1994), the court held that injunctive relief may be appropriate if there are disputed issues of fact regarding the validity of a candidate's application. 52.To correct a clear or manifest error of law or fact, In Burdick V. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), the Supreme Court held that injunctive relief may be appropriate to protect the integrity of the electoral process, even if it imposes some burden on the right to vote. 53.Breach of duty to preserve application materials: In re S.B., 354 S.W.3d 669, 676 (Tex. 2011) (holding that election officials have a duty to preserve application materials) 54.Eagle Forum of TeX. V. Reyna, 797 F.3d 839, 847 (5th Cir. 2015) (stating that the preservation of election documents is a vital part of the election process) 55.Denial of due process: Phillips V. King, 874 F.3d 1023, 1028 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that denial of due process in election context may Violate the Fourteenth Amendment) 56.Failure to validate signature petitions: Ellis V. Hill, 829 F.2d 673, 676 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that election officials have a duty to validate signature petitions in accordance with statutory requirements) 57.Coercion Against Candidacy Prohibited: Tex. Elec. Code § 141.101 (prohibiting coercion against candidacy) 58.Fai1ure to perform ministerial duties: In re Miller, 412 S.W.3d 207, 214 (Tex. App. - E1 Paso 2013, no pet.) (Holding that election officials have a ministerial duty to perform their duties under the election code) 59.Need for a jury trial: In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Tex. 1998) (recognizing right to a jury trial in certain types of cases, including claims for injunctive relief) 60.Power of courts to grant subject matter relief: Tex. CiV. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.004 (granting courts the power to grant injunctive relief in certain circumstances) 61 .Mootness: Tex. R. App. P. 53.2(1) (providing that an appellate court may still consider issues that are "moot" if they are capable of repetition and likely to evade review) VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court set aside its previous order and grant Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order to place Plaintiffs name on the ballot or take such other action to fix the record as is just and proper under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, Jefferson respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for reconsideration, set aside its previous orders, and take such other action as is just and proper under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jrmar Jefferson prays that the Court grant him judgment against Defendants on his claims, enter the Temporary Restraining Order and set a hearing for Injunctive relief requested herein, grant him his reasonable 10 attorneys’ fees , pro se fee's and costs, and grant him all other and further relief to which he may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jrmar Jefferson Jrrnar “J J ” Jefferson 3700 Reese Drive Dallas, Texas 75210 Tel: (903) 650-0069 Email: voteforjj.com Prose DECLARATION OF JRMAR JEFFERSON My name is Jrrnar Jefferson. My address is 3700 Reese Drive, Dallas, Texas 7 5210, and my date of birth is October 25, 1980. I am competent to make the following declaration: I hereby verify that the factual allegations contained in the foregoing Motion to Reconsider are true and correct Within the best of my knowledge and recollection. Date: April 9, 2023 /s/ Jrmar Jefferson J rmar Jefferson CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Third Verified Amended Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief on all counsel of record in this case via EFile Texas on this 9th day of April ,2023. /s/ Jrmar Jefferson J rmar Jefferson 11 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: 74457553 Filing Code Description: Motion - Miscellanous Filing Description: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Status as of 4/10/2023 11:50 AM CST Associated Case Party: JRMARJJEFFERSON Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Paul Davis paul@fireduptxlawyer.com 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT Jrmar Jefferson jrmarjefferson@gmail.com 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT Associated Case Party: CITY OF DALLAS Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Lilia Villegas lilia.villegas@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT Lori Plaster lori.plaster@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT Stacy Rodriguez stacy.rodriguez@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT Associated Case Party: BILIERAE JOHNSON Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Andrew Spaniol andrew.spaniol@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT Kathleen Fones kathleen.fones@dallas.gov 4/9/2023 11:47:31 PM SENT