Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
____________
ORIGINAL PETITION OF
CONTESTANTS LETICIA GARZA GALVAN AND MARTIE GARCIA VELA
COMES NOW LETICIA “LETTY” GARZA GALVAN and MARTIE GARCIA VELA,
Contestants in the above-styled cause, complaining of and about ELOY VERA and
BALDEMAR “BALDE” GARZA, respectively, Contestees herein, and for such cause of action
1. Pursuant to Rule 190.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff intends to conduct
in the Texas Election Code, including the requirement that “[w]hen the contestant’s petition is
filed, the district clerk shall immediately notify the district judge of the filing.” Tex. Elec. Code
§ 232.012.
Parties
3. At all times mentioned in this petition, Contestant Leticia Garza Galvan was an
individual residing at 495 Dr. Mario Ramirez Ave., Roma, Starr County, Texas. The last three
1
numbers of Contestant’s driver’s license number are 495. The last three numbers of Contestant’s
4. At all times mentioned in this petition, Contestant Martie Garcia Vela was an individual
residing at 1000 Rio Colorado, Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas. The last three numbers of
Contestant’s driver’s license number are 423. The last three numbers of Contestant’s social
7. Contestees must be commanded to answer this petition by 10:00 a.m. on the 5th day after
service of the citation. Tex. Elec. Code § 232.012(c). A citation issued in a primary election
contest must direct the officer receiving the citation to return it unserved if it is not served within
8. Contestant brings this action pursuant to title 14, chapter 232, Texas Election Code, to
contest the results of two Democratic Party primary elections held on March 6, 2018: to select
the nominee for County Judge of Starr County, and to select the nominee for Judge of the 229th
District Court (the “contested elections”). Leticia Garza Galvan and Eloy Vera were the only
candidates for the nomination for Starr County Judge, and venue is proper in Starr County. Tex.
Elec. Code § 232.006(c). Martie Garcia Vela and Baldemar Garza were the only candidates for
the nomination for Judge of the 229th District Court. The 229th District Court includes Starr,
Duval, and Jim Hogg Counties, and venue is proper in Starr County because Contestee Garza
resides in Starr County. Id. § 232.006(b)(1). This election contest is timely filed because it is
filed not later than the 10th day after the date the official result of the contested election was
10. A copy of this petition was delivered to the Texas Secretary of State as required by Texas
Election Contest
11. Both contestants herein timely requested recounts of their races after the original canvass
showed them having lost narrowly. Starr County held the recounts on March 20-22, and Jim
Hogg and Duval counties held their recounts shortly thereafter with respect to Contestant Martie
Garcia Vela’s race for 229th District Court. Both Contestants reduced the contestees’ margins of
victory in the recounts. The post-recount canvass was certified on April 2, 2018. The certified
Accordingly, Contestee Eloy Vera was declared the winner because he purportedly
received 159 more votes than Contestant Leticia Garza Galvan, and Contestee Baldemar Garza
was declared the winner because he purportedly received 106 more votes than Contestant Martie
Garcia Vela.
3
12. Contestant will show on the trial of this cause that these were not the true outcomes of the
13. Election officials report that 2,067 mail-in ballots were sent to voters in the March 2018
Democratic primary election, and only 1,089 were returned to the elections office. There are
many more voters who requested mail ballots but never received them, and are not reflected on
14. Even setting aside those who requested mail ballots but were not recorded as having done
so, the approximate 50% return rate is irregular, and indicative of the maladministration of the
ballot by mail system by elections officials. The official records thus far received by contestants
are in a shambles and rife with factual errors regarding when ballot by mail applications were
received, when ballots were purportedly mailed to voters, and when and how they were received
by election officials.
15. While the official records of such information are clearly unreliable, it appears, and
contestants intend to show, that election officials failed to send dozens, if not hundreds, of ballots
to voters who had requested them, preventing legal voters from voting.
16. For those voters who were fortunate enough to have their requests actually recorded and
then fulfilled, a great number of them were fulfilled too late, after the statutory deadlines, for
those voters to vote the ballots and return them to be counted, preventing more legal voters from
voting.
17. Violations of the statutes governing the administration of mail balloting therefore
implicate hundreds of mail ballots of legal voters, and require a new election regardless of
4
18. However, on information and belief, these pervasive violations of simple statutory
deadlines and recordkeeping requirements were no accident, but a scheme to reject or divert
those applications and mail-in ballots from voters Contestees and their associates believed to be
for administering the mail ballot system knew how to identify ballots likely to be supportive of
contestants, and thwarted such voters, e.g., by “losing” those applications or sending the ballots
to such voters late, in an attempt to thwart the exercise of the franchise by such voters.
19. Additionally, numerous mail ballots were counted that should not have been counted,
because they were returned in violation of the requirements that they be delivered by postal
20. Contestant Leticia Galvan lives in Roma, and contestees know that she has a strong base
of support there.
21. Contestant Martie Garcia Vela has a strong base of support in Garciasville, which
Contestees know.
23. Contestee Eloy Vera is the County Judge, and has a majority on the Commissioners’
Court, and is therefore able to control the agenda and policy. One of his supporters on the Court
24. Contestee Vera, as County Judge, in conjunction with Roy Pena, voted not to include
polling sites in Garciasville and El Cenizo for the March 2018 primaries. These are the areas
25. Contestee Vera, and/or other County or election officials acting in conjunction with him
or in his interest, also set extended hours for the entire second week of voting, and Saturday
5
voting, at the Rio Grande City site, the County Courthouse, despite the fact that such hours were
26. The extended hours were not properly approved or noticed to the public, preventing
appropriate opportunity for debate and submission of requests for extended hours in other
locations. The effect was to make it easier for voters in Rio Grande City to vote, but relatively
harder or impossible for many voters in contestants’ stronger areas to vote, because it would
27. Starr County District Attorney Omar Escobar was vigorously and emotionally opposed to
the campaigns of Contestant Martie Garcia Vela and Contestant Leticia Galvan, and he
28. Despite DA Escobar’s “investigation” into purported voter fraud, which he ensured was
well-publicized immediately before and during early voting (with arrests an indictments in
January and February), the politiqueras working for Contestees did not appear to be concerned
29. On information and belief, at least six persons working for Contestees’ side in the
election were engaged in soliciting false information for mail ballot applications, voting without
direction from the voter, providing illegal assistance or assisting voters not eligible for
assistance, and failing to comply with the requirement to sign and write their information on the
applications and carrier envelopes of voters they assisted. These individuals include, but may
not be limited to, women named Barbara, Juanita, Debbie, Frances, Gilma, Raquel, and Mari
Cortez. Some of them work for Commissioner Roy Pena and preyed upon individuals who they
know to depend on county assistance, including through the food pantry program.
6
30. For example, Guadalupe and Roel Trevino reported to DA Escobar that Barbara and
Juanita came to their house, filled out their ballots but refused to vote for the candidates
indicated by the Trevinos, demanded the Trevinos sign and took the ballots. It is common
knowledge that these woman work for Commissioner Roy Pena and that they work with the food
31. On information and belief, DA Escobar, faced with this direct complaint, instructed
elections officials not to count the Trevinos’ ballots. However, Escobar has not apparently done
anything further to investigate or prosecute those involved, who were working on behalf of the
Contestees, whom Escobar supported in the election. Moreover, the DA has no authority to
instruct election officials to simply set ballots aside. If he believed the Trevinos’ complaint had
merit, which he clearly did, he had the responsibility to take appropriate action.
32. As another example, Alma Alvarado, who is in her eighties, will testify that Gilma,
another person employed by Commissioner Roy Pena, arrived at her house and voted for Eloy
Vera in direct contradiction to Ms. Alvarado’s instructions to vote for Leticia Galvan. See
Exhibit A (Declaration of Alma Alvarado). Gilma rebuffed Ms. Alvarado’s instructions and
said “estos son los Buenos,” and “no, these are the ones Roy is supporting,” completed the ballot,
and told Ms. Alvarado to sign it. Aside from constituting illegal assistance and voting contrary
to the voter’s direction, this occurred at around 11 am, while Gilma was presumably on work
hours. Ms. Alvarado was fortunate in that she was able to cancel the ballot and vote in person,
after she recounted the event to her daughter, but many more voters had this experience and were
33. Contestant will show that numerous mail-in ballots that were counted should not have
been counted because the voter permitted another person to take possession of the voter’s ballot
and carrier envelope to deposit same in the mail or with a common or contract carrier for
7
delivery to the elections office but such person failed to “provide the person’s signature, printed
name, and residence address on the reverse side of the envelope,” see Tex. Elec. Code §
86.0051(b), 86.006(f).
34. Contestant will show that numerous mail-in ballots that were counted should not have
been counted due to violations of various other requirements in the Election Code pertaining to
ballots by mail. Such violations include the following: (1) the voter is not eligible for assistance
reading or completing the ballot but was assisted in doing so, see Tex. Elec. Code §§ 64.031,
64.0321, 86.010(a); (4) the voter was assisted by a person not eligible to assist; (5) the assistant
fails to sign the oath prescribed by Tex. Elec. Code § 64.034, see Tex. Elec. Code § 86.010(c);
(6) the assistant fails to enter his or her “signature, printed name, and residence address on the
official carrier envelope of the voter,” Tex. Elec. Code § 86.010(e); (8) the voter did not seal the
carrier envelope containing his or her ballot before the ballot and envelope leaves the voter’s
hand; (9) the voter received assistance that was not limited to that authorized by the election code
at a polling place, see id. § 86.010(b), including encouraging the voter how to vote or even
pressuring or coercing votes; (10) the person providing assistance prepared the voter’s ballot
“without direction from the voter.” See id. § 64.036(a)(2). The ballots of numerous voters who
voted by mail should not have been counted due to one or more of the reasons indicated above
(and for such additional reasons as may present themselves in discovery or at trial).
35. Voting in-person was marred by statutory violations and irregularities, and by a lack of
proper recordkeeping which makes it impossible to properly audit the election or investigate all
36. As an initial matter, elections officials have admitted that, as of February 26, the Monday
of the second week of early voting, there was a discrepancy of at least 15 voters who had signed
8
in versus ballots cast. This was apparently only discovered after another candidate, Clarissa
Gonzalez, voted and then recognized her name was not recorded as having voted, and
for over an hour, could never find her on the list, and asked her to sign an affidavit. Three days
later he conducted a briefing at the Courthouse Annex and explained they had identified a
discrepancy of 15 voters between the poll lists and the ballots cast. This was only mid-way
37. Moreover, the Election Code requires that, if assistance is provided by someone other
than election officers, an election officer “shall enter the person’s name and address on the poll
list beside the voter’s name.” Tex. Elec. Code 64.032(d). Despite the clear statutory
requirement, and despite the fact that a great number of voters received assistance at the polls,
election workers were not recording the names and addresses of the assistants anywhere, much
38. Contestant will show that multiple voters were assisted in violation of the statutes
governing assistance, including with assistants voting contrary to or without instructions from
the voter assisted. Yet it is now impossible to properly audit or investigate this activity because
the elections officials did not record the persons providing assistance and the voters assisted.
39. Contestant will show that numerous votes that were counted should not have been
counted because the votes were cast in violation of the rules regarding assistance at the polls, i.e.,
that the voter was assisted while voting in person but was ineligible for assistance, and/or that the
voter was assisted in a manner not permitted by the Election Code, and/or that the voter never
requested assistance. The ballots of numerous voters should not have been counted due to one or
more such violations. But failure of proper recordkeeping makes it impossible to know how
41. Contestant will show that the statutes and regulations regarding the Early Voting Ballot
Board (EVBB) were violated, including but not limited to the following.
42. While statutes confer the power to appoint the members of the Early Voting Ballot Board
on the party chair in a primary, Contestee Eloy Vera exercised effective control of these
appointments. He appointed Armandina Martinez, Starr County Human Resources Director, the
presiding judge of the EVBB. He appointed Alma Garcia, another HR employee, to the board.
County employees are ineligible to serve on the EVBB, since Vera, a contested candidate in the
43. Vera personally supervises the HR department, including interviewing and hiring its
personnel.
44. Vera exercises effective control or influence over these individuals and wanted them on
the board so they exercise their powers in a manner benefitting him and the candidates he
supported.
45. The EVBB improperly divided the mail-in ballots into stacks and worked individually,
deciding whether to accept or reject a mail ballot instead of working as a board to make such
decisions. No “signature verification committee” was appointed for this election, and therefore
the EVBB was required to act as a board. Under no circumstances is it appropriate for a single
46. As a result, the EVBB acted without authority in all of its decisions. The rejected ballots
were improperly rejected, and the counted ballots were improperly accepted. This implicates
47. The Texas statutes and regulations that permit officials to reject a ballot by mail without
providing sufficient opportunity for the voter to correct the purported deficiency, including but
not limited to Texas Election Code 87.041, 87.0431, are invalid and unenforceable because they
violate the federal and state rights to vote and guarantees of due process and free speech and
association. See, e.g, Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner, No. 4:16-cv-607-MW/CAS, 2016
WL 6090943 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2016). Accordingly, all of the ballots rejected by the EVBB
were improperly rejected, for this reason alone. Contestants will file this constitutional challenge
Violations of law regarding security and recordkeeping for ballot boxes and other election
materials
48. Numerous irregularities regarding the conduct of voting, and especially the
recordkeeping and security requirements for ballot boxes and other election materials, were
violated, including but not limited to the following, opening the door to fraud and preventing a
49. Officials failed to follow the requirements regarding ballot box security. For example, on
the second Wednesday of early voting at the Roma site, the ballot box malfunctioned at
approximately 9:30 am, and was out of service completely or intermittently from that time until
the end of voting that day. The entire time, the emergency slot was opened, and coincidentally,
this was also the same day that the election judges failed to properly report the vote totals at the
appointed times throughout the day, after the 9:30 time, until the close of polls for the day.
50. An election worker at the Roma site also, in trying to fix a purportedly jammed scanner
by moving the diverter inside the box, actually was able to enter the box by prying it open with a
11
broom and introducing his arm inside, while the box remained sealed at the bottom. This
demonstrates that the box was subject to manipulation even while purportedly locked and sealed.
51. Election officials failed to maintain proper records related to voting and the ballot box
security and transportation and totals. Contestants personally observed, the first day of the
recount, multiple ballot boxes with certain forms affixed to the outside, which were missing
beginning in the afternoon of the first day and the second and third day.
52. During the recount, the box containing the provisional ballots was observed to have been
unsealed. The seal was on the box, but it was not properly locked or sealed. This incident
should be recorded on a police body cam video by an officer who was present.
53. Election officials failed to properly label the ballot boxes. Some had no labels at all,
while others had labels that were incorrect. During the recount, John Rodriguez determined
which boxes to count by shaking them to see if they contained ballots. In one instance, due to
the lack of official records of box seal numbers, recount officials actually relied on the seal
number recorded by Contestee Baldemar Garza, who had apparently recorded it at the polling
site one day, to determine which precinct the box was from.
54. In conjunction with these lapses in basic and essential security measures, evidence of
55. During the recount, two ballot boxes were shown to contain stacks of ballots, 15 in one
case and 8 in another, that were in sequential order, not signed by the presiding judge as
required, and all but one of which contained votes for contestees and not for contestants. These
ballots could not have been fed through the scanner before going into the ballot box, because
otherwise they would not have been stuck together as a stack. These ballots were inserted into
12
56. Additional irregularities occurred at the Roma polling place, where Contestants are
relatively stronger, including the fact that it opened late on Election Day, suffered repeated
equipment failures, the ballot box seemed to get full sooner than it should have suggesting it may
have been stuffed with ballots outside of polling hours, among other irregularities.
57. Furthermore, county officials had no central counting plan, as required by statute.
58. Contestant will show that numerous votes were obtained and/or influenced by use of
county or municipal property or resources, in violation of state and federal law. Examples of
such improper influences include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
1. use of county assistance, such as the food pantry program, as noted above.
3. improper influence over the Roma city officials to influence the conduct of voting and
political opponents.
Recount irregularities
59. The recount revealed systematic failure to keep records and follow the statutory security
60. Moreover, ineligible persons served on the recont committee, including a precinct
election judge.
61. As a result of the above, illegal votes were counted in the contested elections for Starr
County Judge and Judge of the 229th District Court, and legal voters who were entitled to vote
were illegally denied that opportunity. Had these illegal votes not been counted, and had the
13
legal votes been counted and had all eligible voters entitled to a ballot been provided a ballot and
opportunity to vote, a different and correct result would have been obtained in the election.
Moreover, the systematic lapses in security and recordkeeping procedures makes it impossible to
Notice of Disqualification
62. Pursuant to Texas Election Code § 231.004, notice is hereby given that this matter
involves territory covered by the Hidalgo County District Court. As such, the district judge of
this court is statutorily disqualified. Contestant requests that the District Clerk promptly notify
the judge of this filing so that a special judge may be assigned to hear this matter. Tex. Elec.
Code § 231.004(b).
Conditions Precedent
Prayer
1. That this cause be set for trial and given precedence over all other causes as provided by law;
2. That notice of the filing of the petition and of the hearing date be given to all parties;
3. If, after hearing the evidence, the Court determines the true outcome of the election shows a
Contestant to be the winner, that the Court declare Contestant the winner of the respective
election;
4. Alternatively, if the Court determines it is impossible to ascertain the true results, that the
Court declare the contested elections void as it is impossible to ascertain the true results, and
order a new election for the contested offices pursuant the Texas Election Code; and
5. That Contestants be awarded costs of this action and all other relief to which Contestant may
be entitled.
14
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
Jerad Wayne Najvar
Tex. Bar No. 24068079
jerad@najvarlaw.com
Mark Lankford
Tex. Bar No. 24100134
mark@najvarlaw.com
NAJVAR LAW FIRM, PLLC
2180 North Loop West, Suite 255
Houston, TX 77018
281.404.4696 phone
281.582.4138 fax
Counsel for Contestants
15