Preview
FILED
10/16/2023 11:56 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Debra Clark DEPUTY
CAUSE N0. DC-23-08796
Jrmar “JJ” Jefferson § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
§
§
§
§
§
CONTESTANT § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
v. §
§
Kardal Coleman § 134T“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
§
CONTESTEE §
OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION
TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
I. Introduction
1. Contestant, Jrmar "JJ" Jefferson, a candidate for the Dallas County Chair Race,
brings forth allegations of procedural irregularities, Violations of state election law,
breaches of party rules, and infringement of constitutional rights in the recent Dallas
County Democratic Party (DCDP) election.
II. Factual Background
2. The DCDP altered the originally scheduled in—person election, opting for a Virtual
OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A
format via Zoom, contrary to the Texas Election Code and the Texas Democratic
Party (TDP) bylaws.
. Despite receiving advisories underscoring the necessity for an in—person election, the
DCDP proceeded with the Zoom-based format.
. Solely Kardel Coleman and Jrmar "JJ" Jefferson filed to appear on the ballot for the
Dallas County Democratic Chair election.
. The Contestant was unjustly excluded from the election process, thereby violating
their rights as a candidate.
. In anticipation of a fair election process, the Contestant dedicated significant
resources to their campaign, incurring various expenses and accruing campaign debt.
. Contravening their own rules of neutrality, DCDP staff overtly endorsed a particular
candidate.
. The presence of certain vendors with vested financial interests during the election
raises concerns over the integrity and impartiality of the electoral process.
HI. Legal Grounds
A. Violation of Texas Election Code § 276.019: The DCDP's decision to modify
the election procedures was unauthorized under the Texas Election Code.
B. Breach of Duty to Hold Fair Elections: The DCDP neglected their obligation
to guarantee a transparent, impartial, and unbiased election, as prescribed by
the Texas Election Code and the TDP bylaws.
C. Breach of Party Rules: Actions of DCDP staff, who endorsed candidates,
OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A
flout party rules that expressly prohibit such endorsements.
D. Violation of First Amendment Rights: By barring the Contestant‘s
participation in the election process, the DCDP impinged on their First
Amendment right to association.
E. Deprivation of Right to a Fair Hearing: The Contestant‘s timely-filed election
contest was met with a general denial by the Contestee, Kardel Coleman. To
dismiss this case would constitute a judicial error, gravely prejudicing the
Contestant.
9. In his motion to dismiss, Kardel Coleman purports to address each of Jefferson's
claims, contending they lack arguable legal merit. However, Coleman's motion fails
to adhere to the explicit mandates of Rule 91a.2. Specifically, he did not:
Explicitly indicate that his motion is made pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.
Precisely identify each cause of action addressed in his motion.
Distinctly state the reasons each cause of action is alleged to lack a basis in law, in
fact, or both.
10. The Contestant, JRMAR “JJ” JEFFERSON comes forth with causes of action
against the alleged discrepancies in the Dallas County Democratic Party election:
11. Violation of TX Election Code § 122 .001 VOTING SYSTEM STANDARDS: The
assertion that the voting machine systems did not operate safely, efficiently,
OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A
accurately, or comply with standards adopted by the Election Assistance
Commission.
12. Violation of TX Administrative Code, Rule§ 81.60 VOTING SYSTEM
CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES: The requirement that a copy of all nationally
qualified software/firmware and source codes for the voting system be delivered to
the Secretary of State 45 days prior to examination.
13. Condition for Approval of Electronic Voting Systems under TX Administrative
Code, Rule § 81.61: The electronic voting systems in use allegedly did not meet the
required certification and performance standards.
14. Violation of Constitutional Rights: Allegations of violations of the First Amendment
rights related to political expression and participation, referencing the Marbury V.
Madison, Smith v. Cherry, and Piotrowski v. City of Houston cases.
15. Denial of Services: An assertion that the Dallas County Democratic Party (DCDP)
denied a fair election by not adhering to the Texas Election Code.
16. Misrepresentation of Information and Election Fraud: Deana Tollerton allegedly
spread false information regarding the differences between a DCDP meeting and a
DCDP election.
OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A
17. Failure to Comply with Election Laws: Accusation that Deana Tollerton did not
fulfill her duties and committed an ultra Vires (beyond her authority) act.
18 . Abuse of Position: Several individuals are accused of manipulating their positions to
influence election results.
19. Failure to Fulfill Ministerial Duties: Alleged that Deana Tollerton, even after three
formal notices, failed to perform her required duties, denying a fair and democratic
election.
20. Favoritism and Breach of Impartiality: Accusations that Mary Leyendecker and
DCDP staff displayed bias in the electoral process.
21 . Voting Machine Malfunctions, Denial of Voting Opportunities, and Compromised
Accessibility: Alleged that widespread issues with voting machines disrupted the
election and denied some people the opportunity to vote.
XVI.
Conclusion
22. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential ramifications on the electoral
process, this court is urged to deny Mr. Coleman's motion to dismiss and ensure a
comprehensive evaluation of all claims. The Contestant, [Your Name], respectfully
requests that the court comprehend the significance of these accusations and assign a
trial date for an Election Contest that facilitates an exhaustive investigation, in
accordance with Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003. Due to Kardel Coleman's non-
OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A
compliance with the stipulations of Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.2 and given the substantive
allegations made by Jefferson regarding the DCDP's conduct of the election,
Coleman's motion to dismiss should be denied.
XXI.
Prayer to Deny Motion to Dismiss under Rule 91a
23. Contestant respectfully requests that this Court deny the Contestee's Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Rule 91a for the reasons set forth herein. Given the factual and
legal grounds articulated, there exists a genuine dispute regarding material facts, and
Contestant's claims have a basis in law and in fact.
Relief Requested
In light of the aforementioned grievances:
1. The Contestant seeks a declaration of the authentic outcome of the election, as
discernible by the tribunal, in line with TeX. Elec. Code § 221.012.
2. Should the tribunal be unable to determine the genuine outcome, a declaration
voiding the election is sought.
3. The Contestant further implores the court to grant any additional relief deemed just
and fitting.
Respectfully submitted on this 16th day of OCTOBER 2023.
§W€W
Jrmar ‘JJ’ Jefferson
3700 Reese Dr.
Dallas, TX 75210
903-650-0069
irmariefferson@gmail.com
PRO SE PLAINTIFF
OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A
DECLARATION OF JRMAR JEFFERSON
I, Jrmar Jefferson, residing at 3700 Reese Drive, Dallas, Texas 75210, hereby make
the following declaration: I confirm the accuracy of the factual allegations presented in
the preceding document titled " OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION
"
TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A
To the best of my knowledge and recollection, the information contained therein is true
and correct. I solemnly affirm that the aforementioned statement is true and correct, and I
acknowledge that it would serve as my testimony ifI were under oath in a court of law, subject to
the penalty of perjury.
Date: OCTOBR 16,2023
QM 6
Jrmar “JJ” Jefferson
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served the foregoing "
OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A " " on all parties and counsel of record in this
EFile Texas on this day of OCTOBER 2023.
h
case Via email on record and 16TH
Date: OCTOBR 16, 2023
9W g($130M
Jrmar “JJ” Jefferson
OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A
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: 80652628
Filing Code Description: Objection
Filing Description: AND RESPONSE TO MTN TO DISMISS
Status as of 10/17/2023 9:33 AM CST
Associated Case Party: JRMAR JEFFERSON
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jrmar JJJefferson jrmarjefferson@gmail.com 10/16/2023 11:56:28 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: KARDAL COLEMAN
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Michelle Spear michelle@jtlaw.com 10/16/2023 11:56:28 PM SENT
Chad Baruch chad@jtlaw.com 10/16/2023 11:56:28 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 10/16/2023 11:56 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Debra Clark DEPUTY CAUSE N0. DC-23-08796 Jrmar “JJ” Jefferson § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § § § § § CONTESTANT § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS v. § § Kardal Coleman § 134T“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT § § CONTESTEE § OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: I. Introduction 1. Contestant, Jrmar "JJ" Jefferson, a candidate for the Dallas County Chair Race, brings forth allegations of procedural irregularities, Violations of state election law, breaches of party rules, and infringement of constitutional rights in the recent Dallas County Democratic Party (DCDP) election. II. Factual Background 2. The DCDP altered the originally scheduled in—person election, opting for a Virtual OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A format via Zoom, contrary to the Texas Election Code and the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) bylaws. . Despite receiving advisories underscoring the necessity for an in—person election, the DCDP proceeded with the Zoom-based format. . Solely Kardel Coleman and Jrmar "JJ" Jefferson filed to appear on the ballot for the Dallas County Democratic Chair election. . The Contestant was unjustly excluded from the election process, thereby violating their rights as a candidate. . In anticipation of a fair election process, the Contestant dedicated significant resources to their campaign, incurring various expenses and accruing campaign debt. . Contravening their own rules of neutrality, DCDP staff overtly endorsed a particular candidate. . The presence of certain vendors with vested financial interests during the election raises concerns over the integrity and impartiality of the electoral process. HI. Legal Grounds A. Violation of Texas Election Code § 276.019: The DCDP's decision to modify the election procedures was unauthorized under the Texas Election Code. B. Breach of Duty to Hold Fair Elections: The DCDP neglected their obligation to guarantee a transparent, impartial, and unbiased election, as prescribed by the Texas Election Code and the TDP bylaws. C. Breach of Party Rules: Actions of DCDP staff, who endorsed candidates, OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A flout party rules that expressly prohibit such endorsements. D. Violation of First Amendment Rights: By barring the Contestant‘s participation in the election process, the DCDP impinged on their First Amendment right to association. E. Deprivation of Right to a Fair Hearing: The Contestant‘s timely-filed election contest was met with a general denial by the Contestee, Kardel Coleman. To dismiss this case would constitute a judicial error, gravely prejudicing the Contestant. 9. In his motion to dismiss, Kardel Coleman purports to address each of Jefferson's claims, contending they lack arguable legal merit. However, Coleman's motion fails to adhere to the explicit mandates of Rule 91a.2. Specifically, he did not: Explicitly indicate that his motion is made pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a. Precisely identify each cause of action addressed in his motion. Distinctly state the reasons each cause of action is alleged to lack a basis in law, in fact, or both. 10. The Contestant, JRMAR “JJ” JEFFERSON comes forth with causes of action against the alleged discrepancies in the Dallas County Democratic Party election: 11. Violation of TX Election Code § 122 .001 VOTING SYSTEM STANDARDS: The assertion that the voting machine systems did not operate safely, efficiently, OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A accurately, or comply with standards adopted by the Election Assistance Commission. 12. Violation of TX Administrative Code, Rule§ 81.60 VOTING SYSTEM CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES: The requirement that a copy of all nationally qualified software/firmware and source codes for the voting system be delivered to the Secretary of State 45 days prior to examination. 13. Condition for Approval of Electronic Voting Systems under TX Administrative Code, Rule § 81.61: The electronic voting systems in use allegedly did not meet the required certification and performance standards. 14. Violation of Constitutional Rights: Allegations of violations of the First Amendment rights related to political expression and participation, referencing the Marbury V. Madison, Smith v. Cherry, and Piotrowski v. City of Houston cases. 15. Denial of Services: An assertion that the Dallas County Democratic Party (DCDP) denied a fair election by not adhering to the Texas Election Code. 16. Misrepresentation of Information and Election Fraud: Deana Tollerton allegedly spread false information regarding the differences between a DCDP meeting and a DCDP election. OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A 17. Failure to Comply with Election Laws: Accusation that Deana Tollerton did not fulfill her duties and committed an ultra Vires (beyond her authority) act. 18 . Abuse of Position: Several individuals are accused of manipulating their positions to influence election results. 19. Failure to Fulfill Ministerial Duties: Alleged that Deana Tollerton, even after three formal notices, failed to perform her required duties, denying a fair and democratic election. 20. Favoritism and Breach of Impartiality: Accusations that Mary Leyendecker and DCDP staff displayed bias in the electoral process. 21 . Voting Machine Malfunctions, Denial of Voting Opportunities, and Compromised Accessibility: Alleged that widespread issues with voting machines disrupted the election and denied some people the opportunity to vote. XVI. Conclusion 22. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential ramifications on the electoral process, this court is urged to deny Mr. Coleman's motion to dismiss and ensure a comprehensive evaluation of all claims. The Contestant, [Your Name], respectfully requests that the court comprehend the significance of these accusations and assign a trial date for an Election Contest that facilitates an exhaustive investigation, in accordance with Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003. Due to Kardel Coleman's non- OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A compliance with the stipulations of Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.2 and given the substantive allegations made by Jefferson regarding the DCDP's conduct of the election, Coleman's motion to dismiss should be denied. XXI. Prayer to Deny Motion to Dismiss under Rule 91a 23. Contestant respectfully requests that this Court deny the Contestee's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 91a for the reasons set forth herein. Given the factual and legal grounds articulated, there exists a genuine dispute regarding material facts, and Contestant's claims have a basis in law and in fact. Relief Requested In light of the aforementioned grievances: 1. The Contestant seeks a declaration of the authentic outcome of the election, as discernible by the tribunal, in line with TeX. Elec. Code § 221.012. 2. Should the tribunal be unable to determine the genuine outcome, a declaration voiding the election is sought. 3. The Contestant further implores the court to grant any additional relief deemed just and fitting. Respectfully submitted on this 16th day of OCTOBER 2023. §W€W Jrmar ‘JJ’ Jefferson 3700 Reese Dr. Dallas, TX 75210 903-650-0069 irmariefferson@gmail.com PRO SE PLAINTIFF OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A DECLARATION OF JRMAR JEFFERSON I, Jrmar Jefferson, residing at 3700 Reese Drive, Dallas, Texas 75210, hereby make the following declaration: I confirm the accuracy of the factual allegations presented in the preceding document titled " OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION " TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A To the best of my knowledge and recollection, the information contained therein is true and correct. I solemnly affirm that the aforementioned statement is true and correct, and I acknowledge that it would serve as my testimony ifI were under oath in a court of law, subject to the penalty of perjury. Date: OCTOBR 16,2023 QM 6 Jrmar “JJ” Jefferson CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served the foregoing " OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A " " on all parties and counsel of record in this EFile Texas on this day of OCTOBER 2023. h case Via email on record and 16TH Date: OCTOBR 16, 2023 9W g($130M Jrmar “JJ” Jefferson OBECTION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 91A 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: 80652628 Filing Code Description: Objection Filing Description: AND RESPONSE TO MTN TO DISMISS Status as of 10/17/2023 9:33 AM CST Associated Case Party: JRMAR JEFFERSON Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Jrmar JJJefferson jrmarjefferson@gmail.com 10/16/2023 11:56:28 PM SENT Associated Case Party: KARDAL COLEMAN Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Michelle Spear michelle@jtlaw.com 10/16/2023 11:56:28 PM SENT Chad Baruch chad@jtlaw.com 10/16/2023 11:56:28 PM SENT