Motion for Election Contest in Texas

What Is a Motion for Election Contest?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Election Contest

“An election contest is a special proceeding created by the Legislature to provide a remedy for elections tainted by fraud, illegality or other irregularity.” (See Blum v. Lanier (1999) 997 S.W.2d 259, 262; De Shazo v. Webb (1938) 113 S.W.2d 519, 524.)

“A party cannot file such a suit until after the election.” (See id; Tex. Elec. Code § 233.006(a).)

"The purpose of an election contest is to determine whether the outcome of an election is correct." (See Rodriguez v. Rangel, No. 04-23-00099-CV, at *14 (Tex. App. Nov. 13, 2023); Flores v. Cuellar (2008) 269 S.W.3d 657, 660; TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 221.003(a)); accord Galvan v. Vera, No. 04-18-00309-CV, 2018 WL 4096383, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.).)

"Section 221.003 provides that the court shall attempt to ascertain whether the outcome of the contested election, as shown by the final canvass, is not the true outcome." (See id; Slusher v. Streater (1995) 896 S.W.2d 239, 242; accord Galvan, 2018 WL 4096383, at *2.)

Procedure for Overturning an Election

"To overturn an election, the contestant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that voting irregularities materially affected the election results." (See Rodriguez v. Rangel, No. 04-23-00099-CV, at *14-15 (Tex. App. Nov. 13, 2023); Flores v. Cuellar (2008) 269 S.W.3d 657, 660; Galvan v. Vera, No. 04-18-00309-CV, 2018 WL 4096383, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Slusher v. Streater (1995) 896 S.W.2d 239, 242.)

"A contestant can establish the outcome was materially affected by showing:

illegal votes were counted or an election official failed to count legal votes or engaged in other fraud, illegal conduct, or mistake; and
a different result would have been reached."

(See id.)

Rules for Filing a Motion for Election Contest

Title 14 of the Texas Code governs election contests, and Chapter 231 governs contests in district court.

Section 213.002 states, “Except as otherwise provided by this subtitle, the rules governing civil suits in the district court apply to an election contest in the district court.” (See Tex. Elec. Code § 231.002.)

Section 231.007 contains procedures for a new election and states, “If a judgment in an election contest orders that a new election be held, as soon as practicable after the judgment becomes final, the district court shall set the date for the new election. In the case of a general or special election, the court shall direct the appropriate authority to order the election for the date set by the court. In the case of a primary election, the court shall direct the appropriate officers of the political party to hold the election on the date set.” (See Tex. Elec. Code § 231.007(a).)

“The district judge shall decide the issues of fact in an election contest without a jury.” (See Tex. Elec. Code § 231.005.)

“An election contest has precedence in the appellate courts and shall be disposed of as expeditiously as practicable.” (See Tex. Elec. Code § 231.009.)

Standard of Review in an Election Contest

“We review a trial court's judgment in an election contest for an abuse of discretion.” (See Rodriguez v. Rangel, No. 04-23-00099-CV, at *15 (Tex. App. Nov. 13, 2023); Flores v. Cuellar (2008) 269 S.W.3d 657, 660; Tiller v. Martinez (1998) 974 S.W.2d 769, 772.)

“In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we may consider the sufficiency of the evidence supporting its findings of fact.” (See id; Jones v. Morales (2010) 318 S.W.3d 419, 423; Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller (1991) 806 S.W.2d 223, 226.)

“For a legal sufficiency review of a finding where a clear and convincing evidence standard applies, [we] look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true.” (See Rodriguez v. Rangel, No. 04-23-00099-CV, at *15 (Tex. App. Nov. 13, 2023); In re Z.N. (2020) 602 S.W.3d 541, 545.)

“For a factual sufficiency review of a finding where a clear and convincing evidence standard applies, we review the entire record and [we] must give due consideration to evidence that the factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing." (See Rodriguez v. Rangel, No. 04-23-00099-CV, at *15-16 (Tex. App. Nov. 13, 2023); In the Interest of J.F.C (2003) 96 S.W.3d 256, 266.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Election Contest

It is well settled that “the trial court's statutory duty was to attempt to ascertain whether the outcome of the contested election, as shown by the final canvass, is not the true outcome because . . . an election officer or other person officially involved in the administration of the election . . . made a mistake." (See TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 221.003(a); Slusher v. Streater (1995) 896 S.W.2d 239, 242; Rodriguez v. Rangel, No. 04-23-00099-CV, at *21 (Tex. App. Nov. 13, 2023).)

It is also well settled that “in an election contest, the trial court is the factfinder. It assesses the weight and credibility of witness testimony, it may believe or disbelieve any witness, and it resolves conflicts in the evidence.” (See City of Keller v. Wilson (2005) 168 S.W.3d 802, 819-20; McGalliard v. Kuhlmann (1986) 722 S.W.2d 694, 697; Rodriguez v. Rangel, No. 04-23-00099-CV, at *36 (Tex. App. Nov. 13, 2023); Galvan v. Vera, No. 04-18-00309-CV, 2018 WL 4096383, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 231.005.)

Documents for Motion for Election Contest in Texas

Sort By

Gerardo Gerry Lozano VS. David White document preview

Order Signed - ORDER OF REFERRAL AND RECUSAL ON COURT'S OWN MOTION

2 pages

FILED ALLQ; O'CLOCK KM CAUSE NO. C-5296-23-J JAN 0 ll 2024 GERARDO GERRY LOZANO § Contestant, § …