Preview
FILED
2/15/2022 11:59 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Cassandra Walker DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-22-00099
CHRISTINA SOWELLS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§§§§§§
Plaintiff,
vs. 101“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THE DALLAS COUNTY
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, KRISTY
NOBLE as the Dallas County
Democratic Party Chair, and HENRY
BROWN, Candidate for Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1.
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION CHALLENGING THE
CANDIDATE’S PETITION SIGNATURES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Christina Sowells, candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place
1, (hereinafier “Plaintiff’), and files this, her Plaintiff’ s First Amended Original Petition
Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures complaining of and against The Dallas County
Democratic Party (hereinafter “DCDP”), Kristy Noble as the Dallas County Democratic Party
Chair (hereinafter “Defendant Noble”) and Henry Brown, candidate for Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 2, Place 1 (hereinafter “Defendant Brown”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) and
for cause of action would respectfully show the Court the following:
I. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff requests the Court to declare that Defendant Brown’s application and petitions are
invalid because Defendant Brown failed to obtain the required 250 valid signatures to be included
on the ballot as a candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1 and because Defendant
Brown falsified his application for place on the ballot as a candidate for Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 2, Place 1. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests the Court to order votes for Defendant
Sowells vs. DCDP, et a1 — Plaintiff’ s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures
Page 1 of 9
Brown not be counted.
II. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL
This matter is subject to Discovery level 2 in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 190.3.
HI. PARTIES AND SERVICE
Plaintiff Christina Sowells is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas.
Defendant, The Dallas County Democratic Party is a political party organized in
accordance with the Texas Election Code with its principal place of business located at 1414 N.
Washington Ave., Dallas, Texas 75204 and may be served with process by serving its Chairperson,
Kristy Noble, at 1414 N. Washington Ave., Dallas, Texas 75204 or Wherever she may be
found. Defendant has made an appearance before the court. Service is not requested.
Defendant, Kristy Noble, is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas, and may
be served With process at principal place of business located at 1414 N. Washington Ave., Dallas,
Texas 75204 or Wherever she may be found. Defendant has made an appearance before the court.
Service is not requested.
Defendant, Henry Brown, candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, is an
individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas, and may be served with process at his usual place
of abode at 21 1 Athel Drive, Mesquite, Texas 75149 or wherever he may be found. Defendant has
made an appearance before the court. Service is not requested.
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Jurisdiction is proper in this Court in accordance with Texas Elections Code 221.002 and
Plaintiff is seeking an injunction against Defendants in accordance with Texas Civil Practices and
Remedies Code 65.021.
Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, because the vents giving rise to Plaintiff’ s causes
Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff” s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures
Page 2 of 9
of action occurred in Dallas County, Texas and because all parties are residents of Dallas County
for venue purposes.
V-
This lawsuit arises out of Defendant Brown’s failure to obtain the required 250 valid
petition signatures from persons residing in Precinct 2, in support of his candidacy to run for Justice
of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place l.
Background
The deadline to submit applications for placement on the ballot for Justice of the Peace
races in Dallas County, Texas, was December l3, 2021.
Plaintiff submitted her application, filing fee, and 45 petition pages containing a total of
482 signatures to the Dallas County Democratic Party for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place l
on December l3, 2021. Thereafter, Defendant Noble certified Plaintiff for the primary ballot.
Defendant Brown submitted his application, filing fee and forty-five (45) petition pages,
containing a total of 386 signatures to the Dallas County Democratic Party for Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 2, Place l on December l3, 2021 (the above-mentioned application and petition are
attached hereto as Exhibit A).
After the filing deadline, a candidate may not file, and the county chair may not accept an
amended application or an amendment to an application. Tex. Elec. Code §l4l.032(g).
The primary election will be held on March l, 2022, with early voting ballots by mail being
mailed out on January 15, 2022.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
A. Violation of Texas Election Code §141 and §1 72. 021 (e) - Defendant Brown’s Petition
does not contain 250 valid signatures
For Justice of the Peace Election, the Texas Elections Code requires a petition to contain
Sowells vs. DCDP, et a1 — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures
Page 3 of 9
the signatures of at least 250 registered voters of the territory from which the office is sought. Tex.
Elec. Code §141.063(a) and §172.021(e). To constitute a valid signature, the petition, in addition
to the signature, must include the following information:
(a) the signer’s residence address;
(b) the signer’s date of birth or the signer’s voter registration number;
(c) the date of signing; and
(d) the signer’s printed name.
Tex. Elec. Code §141.063(a)(2). If a peittion does not contain at least 250 valid signatures
as defined by §141.063(a)(2) and the affidvit required by §141.065, then the petition is not valid
and Will not support that candidate’s name being placed on the ballot. Tex. Elec.Code §141.062.
Defendant Brown’s petition only contains 214 valid signatures. Defendant Brown’s
petition is invalid for the following reasons:
One hundred and twenty-six (126) could not be verified as registered voters
via www.dallascountyvotes.org, by Defendant Brown’s own inability to
verify VUID numbers for these said 126 persons who signed his petition
(see attached Exhibit A)
Seven (7) signatures are from a precinct other than Precinct 2 (see attached
Exhibit B);
Three (3) signatures are missing a signature and/or printed name (see
attached exhibit C);
Four (4) signed Christina Sowells’ petition first (the petition states at the
top “Signing the petition for more than one candidate for the same office in
the same election is prohibited”) (see attached Exhibit D);
Four (4) signatures are duplicates, wherein the signer signed Defendant
Brown’s petition on an earlier date (see attached Exhibit E);
Four (4) entries are completely illegible (see attached Exhibit F);
Nine (9) do not have a valid date of birth (see attached exhibit G);
Thirteen (l 3) are not dated (see attached Exhibit H);
Five (5) VUID’s do not match the name listed on the petition (see attached
Exhibit I); and
Ten (10) possible fraudulent signatures, signatures on petition do not match
that of those voter registration applications.
B. Defendant Brown ’s Petition is also invalid Because the Affidavit Required by §141. 065
Sowells vs. DCDP, et a1 — Plaintiff” s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures
Page 4 of 9
is False
Texas Elections Code §141 .064 states that a person circulating a petition must before
permitting a person to sign, point out and read to the person each statement pertaining to the signer
that appear on the petition, Witness each signature, ascertain that each date of signing is correct;
and before filing verify each signer’s registration status as ascertain that each registration number
entered on the petition is correct. Additionally, Texas Election code §141.065 requires the person
who circulated the petition to sign an affidavit before a person authorized to administer oaths that
they complied with §141.064.
Defendant Brown signed twenty-eight (28) separate affidavits “under oath”, as did his
circulator, Jasmine Brown, signed eight (8) separate affidavits ‘under oat ”. However, both
6
Defendant Brown and his circulator, Jasmine Brown, failed to have the notary complete the
affidavit of circulator. As evidenced in Exhibit A, Jasmine Brown’s petition pages one through
eight (1-8) and defendant Henry Brown’s petition pages one through twenty-eight (1-28) all lack
a completed affidavit, wherein no date of appearance nor name of whom appeared before the
notary were filled in. The failure of Defendant Brown to accurately identify who circulated his
petitions and obtained signatures invalidates all seventy-four (74) signatures obtained by Jasmine
Brown and all two-hundred, forty-one (241) signatures obtained by Defendant Brown. Tex. Elec.
Code §141.063(3).
Defendant Brown’s nominating petitions do not contain the date on which the petitions
were presented to a notary to certify the affidavit of the circulator. Additionally, page 9 of 28 and
page 11 of 28 fail to identify the circulator at the top of those pages. The affidavit for each page
lacks both the printed name of the circulator and the date on which the affidavit was executed.
Under Texas Elections Code §141.065(c) The date is important because a single notarized affidavit
Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures
Page 5 of 9
by any person who obtained signatures is valid for all signatures gathered by the person if the date
of notarization is on or after the date of the last signature obtained by the person. Without the date,
Defendant Brown is not entitled to this safe harbor and the petitions must be struck because “the
clear and specific directions both as to the content of the instrument and the fact that is must be
verified are clearly mandatory and not directory.” Geiger v. DeBusk, 534 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Tex.
CiV. App. — Dallas 1976, org. proceeding). Additionally, the address used by Defendant Brown
on his application for place on the ballot attached hereto as Exhibit K is false. It has come to
Plaintiff s attention, while attempting to serve Defendant Brown with Plaintiff” s Original Petition,
that Defendant Brown has not lived at the address he provided on his application for place on the
ballot in over a year, see return of service from Deputy Rodriguez attached hereto as Exhibit L.
Defendant Brown, falsified, under oath, the information provided on his application for place on
the ballot.
C. Plaintlfl Christina Sowells, Timely Challenged the Petition Filed by Defendant Brown
Tex. Elec. Code §l41.034(a) states “An application for a place on the ballot may not be
challenged for compliance with the applicable requirements as to form, content, and procedure
after the 50th day before the date of the election for which the application is made. The date of the
election is March 1, 2022, fifty days before this date is January 10, 2022.
Plaintiff initiated a challenge to the form, content, and procedure of Defendant Brown’s
application by e-mail directed to Defendant Noble on December 15, 2021 , and again on December
20, 2021. Plaintiff’s challenge identified each signature believed to be invalid and requested that
Defendant Brown be removed as a candidate from the Democratic primary ballot for Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1. The Dallas County Democratic Party rejected Plaintiffs challenge.
VII. RELIEF SOUGHT
Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures
Page 6 of 9
Declaratory Judgment
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the facts and allegations set forth above.
A justiciable controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff requests
the Court to declare that Defendant Brown’s application and petitions are invalid because
Defendant Brown failed to obtain the required 250 valid signatures to be included on the ballot as
a candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1 and because Defendant Brown falsified his
application for place on the ballot as a candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1.
In accordance with §37.001 et seq. of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Plaintiff
is entitled to recover her reasonable and necessary costs herein for which she now sues.
One of the principal purposes behind the Texas Election code is the prevention of election
fraud. Tex. Elec. Code §1.003(a); In re Bell, 91 S.W.3d 784,787 (Tex. 2002). “A person who is
being harmed or is in danger of being harmed by a violation or threatened Violation of this code is
entitled to appropriate injunctive relief to prevent the Violation from continuing or occurring.” Tex.
Elec. Code §273.081.
Defendant Brown has not submitted valid petitions containing the valid signatures of two-
hundred and fifty (250) registered voters residing in Precinct 2 of Dallas County, Texas.
Notwithstanding, the Dallas County Democratic Party and its Chair, Defendant Noble, has
certified Defendant Brown’s name to appear on the respective primary ballots for Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, in violation of the Texas Elections Code. Plaintiff, the Democratic
Candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, is in danger of being harmed by these
Violations by having to face an opponent who would be on the ballot in violation of the Texas
Elections Code. Risner v. Harris County Republican Party, 444 S.W.3d 327,345 9Tex. App.-
Houston [1“ Dist] 2014, writ of mandamus denied, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 801 (tex. September 8,
Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff’ s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures
Page 7 of 9
2014)).
Given Defendant Brown’s failure to obtain two-hundred and fifty (250) valid signatures on
his respective petition, his failure to properly identify circulators, failure to properly notarize
petitions and falsifying information on his application for place on the ballot. Plaintiff will suffer
irreparable harm if he is allowed to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 2, Place 1 or if his votes are counted.
Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; no legitimate harm or
prejudice will result to Defendants by granting the requested injunctive relief given the
immediate and irreparable harm that will result to Plaintiff.
All conditions precedent to recovery have been performed, have occurred, or have been
waived.
VIII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
All conditions precedent necessary for Plaintiff to have and recover in this action have been
performed, have occurred or have been waived.
IX. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, Christina Sowells, respectfully
requests a hearing that Plaintiff be granted and Permanent Injunction against Defendants; for a
declaratory judgment as requested; for reasonable and necessary fees incurred by Plaintiff in
prosecuting this action, for costs and expenses of suit herein, for post-judgment interest on all
monetary relief sought herein at the highest rates allowed by law; and for such other and further
relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures
Page 8 of 9
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christina Sowells
Christina Sowells, Plaintiff Pro-Se
P.O. Box 852972
Mesquite, Texas 75185
Phone: 972-813-9040
Email: christinasowells4ip@2mail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 15, 2022, a true and correct copy of this document was
served to all parties of records in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as indicated
below:
Via E-Service: hbrownl619@2mail.com
Henry Brown
21 1 Athel Drive
Mesquit, Texas 75204
Defendant
Via E-Service: chad@itlaw.com
Charles “Chad” Baruch
Johnston, Tobey, Baruch, PC
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880
Dallas, Texas 75251
Attorney Defendants DCDP and Kristy Noble
/s/ Christina Sowells
Christina Sowells
Sowells vs. DCDP, et a1 — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures
Page 9 of 9
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: 61758221
Status as of 2/15/2022 12:55 PM CST
Associated Case Party: DALLAS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Michelle Spear michelle@jtlaw.com 2/15/2022 11:59:04 AM SENT
Randy Johnston randy@jtlaw.com 2/15/2022 11:59:04 AM SENT
Chad Baruch chad@jtlaw.com 2/15/2022 11:59:04 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: HENRY BROWN
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Henry Brown hbrown1619@gmail.com 2/15/2022 11 :59:O4 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 2/15/2022 11:59 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Cassandra Walker DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-22-00099 CHRISTINA SOWELLS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT §§§§§§§§§§§§ Plaintiff, vs. 101“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE DALLAS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY, KRISTY NOBLE as the Dallas County Democratic Party Chair, and HENRY BROWN, Candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1. Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION CHALLENGING THE CANDIDATE’S PETITION SIGNATURES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Christina Sowells, candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, (hereinafier “Plaintiff’), and files this, her Plaintiff’ s First Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures complaining of and against The Dallas County Democratic Party (hereinafter “DCDP”), Kristy Noble as the Dallas County Democratic Party Chair (hereinafter “Defendant Noble”) and Henry Brown, candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1 (hereinafter “Defendant Brown”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) and for cause of action would respectfully show the Court the following: I. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Plaintiff requests the Court to declare that Defendant Brown’s application and petitions are invalid because Defendant Brown failed to obtain the required 250 valid signatures to be included on the ballot as a candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1 and because Defendant Brown falsified his application for place on the ballot as a candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests the Court to order votes for Defendant Sowells vs. DCDP, et a1 — Plaintiff’ s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures Page 1 of 9 Brown not be counted. II. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL This matter is subject to Discovery level 2 in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3. HI. PARTIES AND SERVICE Plaintiff Christina Sowells is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas. Defendant, The Dallas County Democratic Party is a political party organized in accordance with the Texas Election Code with its principal place of business located at 1414 N. Washington Ave., Dallas, Texas 75204 and may be served with process by serving its Chairperson, Kristy Noble, at 1414 N. Washington Ave., Dallas, Texas 75204 or Wherever she may be found. Defendant has made an appearance before the court. Service is not requested. Defendant, Kristy Noble, is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas, and may be served With process at principal place of business located at 1414 N. Washington Ave., Dallas, Texas 75204 or Wherever she may be found. Defendant has made an appearance before the court. Service is not requested. Defendant, Henry Brown, candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas, and may be served with process at his usual place of abode at 21 1 Athel Drive, Mesquite, Texas 75149 or wherever he may be found. Defendant has made an appearance before the court. Service is not requested. IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction is proper in this Court in accordance with Texas Elections Code 221.002 and Plaintiff is seeking an injunction against Defendants in accordance with Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code 65.021. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, because the vents giving rise to Plaintiff’ s causes Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff” s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures Page 2 of 9 of action occurred in Dallas County, Texas and because all parties are residents of Dallas County for venue purposes. V- This lawsuit arises out of Defendant Brown’s failure to obtain the required 250 valid petition signatures from persons residing in Precinct 2, in support of his candidacy to run for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place l. Background The deadline to submit applications for placement on the ballot for Justice of the Peace races in Dallas County, Texas, was December l3, 2021. Plaintiff submitted her application, filing fee, and 45 petition pages containing a total of 482 signatures to the Dallas County Democratic Party for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place l on December l3, 2021. Thereafter, Defendant Noble certified Plaintiff for the primary ballot. Defendant Brown submitted his application, filing fee and forty-five (45) petition pages, containing a total of 386 signatures to the Dallas County Democratic Party for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place l on December l3, 2021 (the above-mentioned application and petition are attached hereto as Exhibit A). After the filing deadline, a candidate may not file, and the county chair may not accept an amended application or an amendment to an application. Tex. Elec. Code §l4l.032(g). The primary election will be held on March l, 2022, with early voting ballots by mail being mailed out on January 15, 2022. VI. CAUSE OF ACTION A. Violation of Texas Election Code §141 and §1 72. 021 (e) - Defendant Brown’s Petition does not contain 250 valid signatures For Justice of the Peace Election, the Texas Elections Code requires a petition to contain Sowells vs. DCDP, et a1 — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures Page 3 of 9 the signatures of at least 250 registered voters of the territory from which the office is sought. Tex. Elec. Code §141.063(a) and §172.021(e). To constitute a valid signature, the petition, in addition to the signature, must include the following information: (a) the signer’s residence address; (b) the signer’s date of birth or the signer’s voter registration number; (c) the date of signing; and (d) the signer’s printed name. Tex. Elec. Code §141.063(a)(2). If a peittion does not contain at least 250 valid signatures as defined by §141.063(a)(2) and the affidvit required by §141.065, then the petition is not valid and Will not support that candidate’s name being placed on the ballot. Tex. Elec.Code §141.062. Defendant Brown’s petition only contains 214 valid signatures. Defendant Brown’s petition is invalid for the following reasons: One hundred and twenty-six (126) could not be verified as registered voters via www.dallascountyvotes.org, by Defendant Brown’s own inability to verify VUID numbers for these said 126 persons who signed his petition (see attached Exhibit A) Seven (7) signatures are from a precinct other than Precinct 2 (see attached Exhibit B); Three (3) signatures are missing a signature and/or printed name (see attached exhibit C); Four (4) signed Christina Sowells’ petition first (the petition states at the top “Signing the petition for more than one candidate for the same office in the same election is prohibited”) (see attached Exhibit D); Four (4) signatures are duplicates, wherein the signer signed Defendant Brown’s petition on an earlier date (see attached Exhibit E); Four (4) entries are completely illegible (see attached Exhibit F); Nine (9) do not have a valid date of birth (see attached exhibit G); Thirteen (l 3) are not dated (see attached Exhibit H); Five (5) VUID’s do not match the name listed on the petition (see attached Exhibit I); and Ten (10) possible fraudulent signatures, signatures on petition do not match that of those voter registration applications. B. Defendant Brown ’s Petition is also invalid Because the Affidavit Required by §141. 065 Sowells vs. DCDP, et a1 — Plaintiff” s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures Page 4 of 9 is False Texas Elections Code §141 .064 states that a person circulating a petition must before permitting a person to sign, point out and read to the person each statement pertaining to the signer that appear on the petition, Witness each signature, ascertain that each date of signing is correct; and before filing verify each signer’s registration status as ascertain that each registration number entered on the petition is correct. Additionally, Texas Election code §141.065 requires the person who circulated the petition to sign an affidavit before a person authorized to administer oaths that they complied with §141.064. Defendant Brown signed twenty-eight (28) separate affidavits “under oath”, as did his circulator, Jasmine Brown, signed eight (8) separate affidavits ‘under oat ”. However, both 6 Defendant Brown and his circulator, Jasmine Brown, failed to have the notary complete the affidavit of circulator. As evidenced in Exhibit A, Jasmine Brown’s petition pages one through eight (1-8) and defendant Henry Brown’s petition pages one through twenty-eight (1-28) all lack a completed affidavit, wherein no date of appearance nor name of whom appeared before the notary were filled in. The failure of Defendant Brown to accurately identify who circulated his petitions and obtained signatures invalidates all seventy-four (74) signatures obtained by Jasmine Brown and all two-hundred, forty-one (241) signatures obtained by Defendant Brown. Tex. Elec. Code §141.063(3). Defendant Brown’s nominating petitions do not contain the date on which the petitions were presented to a notary to certify the affidavit of the circulator. Additionally, page 9 of 28 and page 11 of 28 fail to identify the circulator at the top of those pages. The affidavit for each page lacks both the printed name of the circulator and the date on which the affidavit was executed. Under Texas Elections Code §141.065(c) The date is important because a single notarized affidavit Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures Page 5 of 9 by any person who obtained signatures is valid for all signatures gathered by the person if the date of notarization is on or after the date of the last signature obtained by the person. Without the date, Defendant Brown is not entitled to this safe harbor and the petitions must be struck because “the clear and specific directions both as to the content of the instrument and the fact that is must be verified are clearly mandatory and not directory.” Geiger v. DeBusk, 534 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Tex. CiV. App. — Dallas 1976, org. proceeding). Additionally, the address used by Defendant Brown on his application for place on the ballot attached hereto as Exhibit K is false. It has come to Plaintiff s attention, while attempting to serve Defendant Brown with Plaintiff” s Original Petition, that Defendant Brown has not lived at the address he provided on his application for place on the ballot in over a year, see return of service from Deputy Rodriguez attached hereto as Exhibit L. Defendant Brown, falsified, under oath, the information provided on his application for place on the ballot. C. Plaintlfl Christina Sowells, Timely Challenged the Petition Filed by Defendant Brown Tex. Elec. Code §l41.034(a) states “An application for a place on the ballot may not be challenged for compliance with the applicable requirements as to form, content, and procedure after the 50th day before the date of the election for which the application is made. The date of the election is March 1, 2022, fifty days before this date is January 10, 2022. Plaintiff initiated a challenge to the form, content, and procedure of Defendant Brown’s application by e-mail directed to Defendant Noble on December 15, 2021 , and again on December 20, 2021. Plaintiff’s challenge identified each signature believed to be invalid and requested that Defendant Brown be removed as a candidate from the Democratic primary ballot for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1. The Dallas County Democratic Party rejected Plaintiffs challenge. VII. RELIEF SOUGHT Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures Page 6 of 9 Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the facts and allegations set forth above. A justiciable controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff requests the Court to declare that Defendant Brown’s application and petitions are invalid because Defendant Brown failed to obtain the required 250 valid signatures to be included on the ballot as a candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1 and because Defendant Brown falsified his application for place on the ballot as a candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1. In accordance with §37.001 et seq. of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her reasonable and necessary costs herein for which she now sues. One of the principal purposes behind the Texas Election code is the prevention of election fraud. Tex. Elec. Code §1.003(a); In re Bell, 91 S.W.3d 784,787 (Tex. 2002). “A person who is being harmed or is in danger of being harmed by a violation or threatened Violation of this code is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief to prevent the Violation from continuing or occurring.” Tex. Elec. Code §273.081. Defendant Brown has not submitted valid petitions containing the valid signatures of two- hundred and fifty (250) registered voters residing in Precinct 2 of Dallas County, Texas. Notwithstanding, the Dallas County Democratic Party and its Chair, Defendant Noble, has certified Defendant Brown’s name to appear on the respective primary ballots for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, in violation of the Texas Elections Code. Plaintiff, the Democratic Candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, is in danger of being harmed by these Violations by having to face an opponent who would be on the ballot in violation of the Texas Elections Code. Risner v. Harris County Republican Party, 444 S.W.3d 327,345 9Tex. App.- Houston [1“ Dist] 2014, writ of mandamus denied, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 801 (tex. September 8, Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff’ s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures Page 7 of 9 2014)). Given Defendant Brown’s failure to obtain two-hundred and fifty (250) valid signatures on his respective petition, his failure to properly identify circulators, failure to properly notarize petitions and falsifying information on his application for place on the ballot. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if he is allowed to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1 or if his votes are counted. Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; no legitimate harm or prejudice will result to Defendants by granting the requested injunctive relief given the immediate and irreparable harm that will result to Plaintiff. All conditions precedent to recovery have been performed, have occurred, or have been waived. VIII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT All conditions precedent necessary for Plaintiff to have and recover in this action have been performed, have occurred or have been waived. IX. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, Christina Sowells, respectfully requests a hearing that Plaintiff be granted and Permanent Injunction against Defendants; for a declaratory judgment as requested; for reasonable and necessary fees incurred by Plaintiff in prosecuting this action, for costs and expenses of suit herein, for post-judgment interest on all monetary relief sought herein at the highest rates allowed by law; and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Sowells vs. DCDP, et al — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures Page 8 of 9 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christina Sowells Christina Sowells, Plaintiff Pro-Se P.O. Box 852972 Mesquite, Texas 75185 Phone: 972-813-9040 Email: christinasowells4ip@2mail.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 15, 2022, a true and correct copy of this document was served to all parties of records in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as indicated below: Via E-Service: hbrownl619@2mail.com Henry Brown 21 1 Athel Drive Mesquit, Texas 75204 Defendant Via E-Service: chad@itlaw.com Charles “Chad” Baruch Johnston, Tobey, Baruch, PC 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880 Dallas, Texas 75251 Attorney Defendants DCDP and Kristy Noble /s/ Christina Sowells Christina Sowells Sowells vs. DCDP, et a1 — Plaintiff’s 15‘ Amended Original Petition Challenging the Candidate’s Petition Signatures Page 9 of 9 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: 61758221 Status as of 2/15/2022 12:55 PM CST Associated Case Party: DALLAS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Michelle Spear michelle@jtlaw.com 2/15/2022 11:59:04 AM SENT Randy Johnston randy@jtlaw.com 2/15/2022 11:59:04 AM SENT Chad Baruch chad@jtlaw.com 2/15/2022 11:59:04 AM SENT Associated Case Party: HENRY BROWN Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Henry Brown hbrown1619@gmail.com 2/15/2022 11 :59:O4 AM SENT