Preview
FILED
9/15/2023 11:08 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Debra Clark DEPUTY
Cause No. DC-23-08796
Jrmar “JJ”Jefferson, § In the District Court
Contestant, g
v. g 134thJudicial District
Kardal Coleman, g
Contestee. g Dallas County, Texas
Contestee Kardal Coleman’s Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss
Introduction
Jamar Jefferson filed this election contest after losing the race for Dallas
County Democratic Party chair by a vote of 232-4. Jefferson’s claims fall
principally into three categories. First, he cites provisions of the elections code that
he contends DCDP violated in conducting the election. Second, he contends that
DCDP failed to use certified voting machines as required by the election code and
its implementing regulations. And third, he alleges the election was conducted
improperly by Zoom rather than at an-person meeting. None of these allegations
has even arguable legal merit.
Relief Sought
Coleman seeks dismissal of all claims asserted by Jefferson.
Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss
Page 1
Procedural Background
By an internal party election conducted in May 2023, Kardal Coleman
defeated Jrmar Jefferson for the office of DCDP chair by a vote of 232-4. Jefferson
now sues, alleging principally that the election was conducted improperly by Zoom
and without using certified voting machines. He seeks to have the election voided.
Argument
Rule 91a authorizes dismissal of any cause of action lacking a basis in law or
fact. “A cause of action has no basis in law if the allegations, taken as true, together
with inferences reasonable drawn from them, do not entitle the claimant to the
relief sought.” TeX. R. Civ. P. 91a.1. A cause of action has no basis in fact if no
reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded. Id. Rule 91a is thus analogous to
federal rule 12(b) (6), requiring dismissal when a plaintiff’s pleading fails to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” GODaddy.com, LLC v. Toups, 429
S.W.3d 752, 754 (Tex. App—Beaumont 2014, pet. denied); see also Wooley v.
Schafifer, 447 S.W.3d 71, 76 (TeX. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied)
(finding “case law interpreting Rule 12(b) (6) instructive” in applying Rule 91a).
In ruling on a motion under rule 91a, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Vasquez v.
Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss
Page 2
Legend Natural Gas III, LP, 492 S.W.3d 448, 451 (TeX. App.—San Antonio 2016,
pet. denied) (citation omitted). So, the Court “need not accept as true legal
conclusions put forth by the pleader. ” Montoya v. Sam Angelo Comm. Med. Ctn, No.
03-16-00510-CV, 2018 WL 2437508, at *7 (Tex. App—Austin May 31, 2018, pet.
denied).
1. Elections for political-party offices are governed by separate provisions
of the election code (and internally adopted policies).
The statutory provisions concerning rules for conduct of elections do not
apply to internal elections conducted by political parties for their own offices.
Instead, the election code authorizes—indeed, requires—political parties to adopt
their own rules concerning casting and counting votes for party positions:
A political party that makes nominations in this state shall adopt
rules that:
(1) prescribe the parliamentary procedure governing the
conduct of party meetings and conventions from the precinct
level to the state level, including:
(A) quorums;
(B) casting and counting votes [and]
(3) prescribe the manner of selecting party officers,
convention delegates, any convention alternates, and
convention officials . . . .
Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss
Page 3
Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 163.002. So, rules cited by Jefferson do not apply to an
election for party chair. And Jefferson does not allege any violation of internal party
rules in connection With the election.
2. The party is not required to use voting machines.
The statutes concerning certification of voting machines do not require the
use of such machines—they simply mandate that if such machines are used, they
must be certified machines. Here, the vote was by individual oral ruling during the
meeting, and did not involve the use of any electronic voting machines. Why?
Because the use of such machines is not permissible in connection with the
selection—the Texas Democratic Party’s rules forbid secret ballots in connection
with the election of a local party chair. TDP Rules, Article V, D. So, any use of an
electronic voting machine to permit a secret ballot would have violated the
governing party provision.
In any event, nothing requires the use of such machines in a local election for
a party officer. And, again, Jefferson does not allege any violation of internal party
rules concerning the use of voting machines, secret ballot, or anything else—and
those are the rules that governed this election.
Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss
Page 4
3. Jefferson does not allege any violation of party rules concerning Zoom.
Jefferson never alleges any violation of the actual rules governing this
election—not in relation to the use of Zoom, and not otherwise. His alleged
violations all relate to statutes governing elections for political—not party—office.
The remainder of his allegations consist of “threadbare recitals” and “conclusory
allegations” insufficient to meet the standard necessary to avoid dismissal under
rule 91a.
Conclusion
Jefferson’s claims should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Charles “Chad” Baruch
State Bar No. 01864300
chad@jtlaw.com
Coyt Randal Johnston
State Bar No. 10834400
randy@jtlaw.com
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880
Dallas, Texas 75251
Telephone: (214) 741-6260
Telecopier: (214) 741-6248
A ttomeys for Contestee
Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss
Page 5
Certificate of Service
A true and correct copy of this instrument has been served on the pro se
contestant by e-filing and by e-mail to info@voteforjj.com, this 15th day of
September, 2023.
/ s/ Charles “Chad” Baruch
Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss
Page 6
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.
Chad Baruch
Bar No. 1864300
chad@jtlaw.com
Envelope ID: 79595201
Filing Code Description: Motion - Dismiss
Filing Description: RULE 91A
Status as of 9/15/2023 11:17 AM CST
Associated Case Party: JRMAR JEFFERSON
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Lamar YakaJefferson yakauber37@gmail.com 9/15/2023 11:08:55 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: KARDAL COLEMAN
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Michelle Spear michelle@jtlaw.com 9/15/2023 11:08:55 AM SENT
Chad Baruch chad@jtlaw.com 9/15/2023 11:08:55 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 9/15/2023 11:08 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Debra Clark DEPUTY Cause No. DC-23-08796 Jrmar “JJ”Jefferson, § In the District Court Contestant, g v. g 134thJudicial District Kardal Coleman, g Contestee. g Dallas County, Texas Contestee Kardal Coleman’s Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss Introduction Jamar Jefferson filed this election contest after losing the race for Dallas County Democratic Party chair by a vote of 232-4. Jefferson’s claims fall principally into three categories. First, he cites provisions of the elections code that he contends DCDP violated in conducting the election. Second, he contends that DCDP failed to use certified voting machines as required by the election code and its implementing regulations. And third, he alleges the election was conducted improperly by Zoom rather than at an-person meeting. None of these allegations has even arguable legal merit. Relief Sought Coleman seeks dismissal of all claims asserted by Jefferson. Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss Page 1 Procedural Background By an internal party election conducted in May 2023, Kardal Coleman defeated Jrmar Jefferson for the office of DCDP chair by a vote of 232-4. Jefferson now sues, alleging principally that the election was conducted improperly by Zoom and without using certified voting machines. He seeks to have the election voided. Argument Rule 91a authorizes dismissal of any cause of action lacking a basis in law or fact. “A cause of action has no basis in law if the allegations, taken as true, together with inferences reasonable drawn from them, do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought.” TeX. R. Civ. P. 91a.1. A cause of action has no basis in fact if no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded. Id. Rule 91a is thus analogous to federal rule 12(b) (6), requiring dismissal when a plaintiff’s pleading fails to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” GODaddy.com, LLC v. Toups, 429 S.W.3d 752, 754 (Tex. App—Beaumont 2014, pet. denied); see also Wooley v. Schafifer, 447 S.W.3d 71, 76 (TeX. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (finding “case law interpreting Rule 12(b) (6) instructive” in applying Rule 91a). In ruling on a motion under rule 91a, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Vasquez v. Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss Page 2 Legend Natural Gas III, LP, 492 S.W.3d 448, 451 (TeX. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied) (citation omitted). So, the Court “need not accept as true legal conclusions put forth by the pleader. ” Montoya v. Sam Angelo Comm. Med. Ctn, No. 03-16-00510-CV, 2018 WL 2437508, at *7 (Tex. App—Austin May 31, 2018, pet. denied). 1. Elections for political-party offices are governed by separate provisions of the election code (and internally adopted policies). The statutory provisions concerning rules for conduct of elections do not apply to internal elections conducted by political parties for their own offices. Instead, the election code authorizes—indeed, requires—political parties to adopt their own rules concerning casting and counting votes for party positions: A political party that makes nominations in this state shall adopt rules that: (1) prescribe the parliamentary procedure governing the conduct of party meetings and conventions from the precinct level to the state level, including: (A) quorums; (B) casting and counting votes [and] (3) prescribe the manner of selecting party officers, convention delegates, any convention alternates, and convention officials . . . . Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss Page 3 Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 163.002. So, rules cited by Jefferson do not apply to an election for party chair. And Jefferson does not allege any violation of internal party rules in connection With the election. 2. The party is not required to use voting machines. The statutes concerning certification of voting machines do not require the use of such machines—they simply mandate that if such machines are used, they must be certified machines. Here, the vote was by individual oral ruling during the meeting, and did not involve the use of any electronic voting machines. Why? Because the use of such machines is not permissible in connection with the selection—the Texas Democratic Party’s rules forbid secret ballots in connection with the election of a local party chair. TDP Rules, Article V, D. So, any use of an electronic voting machine to permit a secret ballot would have violated the governing party provision. In any event, nothing requires the use of such machines in a local election for a party officer. And, again, Jefferson does not allege any violation of internal party rules concerning the use of voting machines, secret ballot, or anything else—and those are the rules that governed this election. Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss Page 4 3. Jefferson does not allege any violation of party rules concerning Zoom. Jefferson never alleges any violation of the actual rules governing this election—not in relation to the use of Zoom, and not otherwise. His alleged violations all relate to statutes governing elections for political—not party—office. The remainder of his allegations consist of “threadbare recitals” and “conclusory allegations” insufficient to meet the standard necessary to avoid dismissal under rule 91a. Conclusion Jefferson’s claims should be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles “Chad” Baruch State Bar No. 01864300 chad@jtlaw.com Coyt Randal Johnston State Bar No. 10834400 randy@jtlaw.com 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880 Dallas, Texas 75251 Telephone: (214) 741-6260 Telecopier: (214) 741-6248 A ttomeys for Contestee Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss Page 5 Certificate of Service A true and correct copy of this instrument has been served on the pro se contestant by e-filing and by e-mail to info@voteforjj.com, this 15th day of September, 2023. / s/ Charles “Chad” Baruch Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss Page 6 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. Chad Baruch Bar No. 1864300 chad@jtlaw.com Envelope ID: 79595201 Filing Code Description: Motion - Dismiss Filing Description: RULE 91A Status as of 9/15/2023 11:17 AM CST Associated Case Party: JRMAR JEFFERSON Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Lamar YakaJefferson yakauber37@gmail.com 9/15/2023 11:08:55 AM SENT Associated Case Party: KARDAL COLEMAN Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Michelle Spear michelle@jtlaw.com 9/15/2023 11:08:55 AM SENT Chad Baruch chad@jtlaw.com 9/15/2023 11:08:55 AM SENT