Motion to Challenge Ballot Validity in Texas

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Challenge Ballot Validity

“The law has intrusted to the duly appointed election officers the duty of counting the ballots. There is a legal presumption that they have done so honestly and carefully. Their returns are entitled to the presumption of regularity. For the court to recount the ballots without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part would be to disregard this presumption." (See Lueders v. Ehlinger (1930) 31 S.W.2d 1099, 1100.)

“The canvassing of votes is part of the election process and is necessary to the determination of the result." (See Grant v. Ammerman (1969) 437 S.W.2d 547, 549; In re City of Floresville, No. 04-16-00757-CV, at *2 (Tex. App. Nov. 30, 2016).)

“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 Hotze v. White, No. 01-08-00016-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. Apr. 15, 2010); Blum v. Lanier (1999) 997 S.W.2d 259, 262; TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 233.003.)

"[A]n election contest includes any type of suit in which the validity of an election or any part of the elective process is made the subject matter of the litigation." (See id; Rossano v. Townsend (1999) 9 S.W.3d 357, 362.)

Laws Governing Challenges to Ballot Validity

“The Election Code provides a strict timetable for the filing of such claims. Under the Code, an election contest may not be brought earlier than the day after election day and must be filed within thirty days after the return date of the election. The thirty-day deadline is jurisdictional and non-waivable." (See Hotze v. White, No. 01-08-00016-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. Apr. 15, 2010); TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN §§ 221.002, 233.006(a)-(b); Arrendondo v. City of Dallas (2002) 79 S.W.3d 657, 670.)

Standard of Review for Trial Court’s Subject Matter Jurisdiction

"A party may contest a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction by filing a plea to the jurisdiction." (See Hotze v. White, No. 01-08-00016-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. Apr. 15, 2010)Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones (1999) 8 S.W.3d 636, 638.)

“We review a trial court's order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. When reviewing such an order, we consider the facts alleged by the plaintiff and, to the extent it is relevant to the jurisdictional issue, the evidence submitted by the parties." (See id; Hoff v. Nueces County (2004) 153 S.W.3d 45, 48; Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. White (2001) 46 S.W.3d 864, 868.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Challenge Ballot Validity

“Courts long ago settled the question, differing only in the phraseology used, by holding that whatever the law requires a voter to do himself he must do as required in order to cast a valid ballot; but that failure on the part of election officers to perform their duties prescribed by law, where such failure has not prevented a fair election, will not deprive the elector of his voting privilege or of his right to exercise it.” (See Bagley v. Holt (1968) 430 S.W.2d 817, 821; Davis v. Walcott (1936) 96 S.W.2d 817; Thompson v. Barnes (1966) 399 S.W.2d 399; City of Roma v. Gonzalez (1965) 397 S.W.2d 943; Gayle v. Alexander (1934) 75 S.W.2d 706.)

It is also well settled “that courts have no power to enquire into the validity of an election until it has been completed…[the] election contest is not [an] ordinary lawsuit but is special proceeding in which district court's authority to act is limited to subjects or grounds expressly or impliedly authorized by Election Code, including any suit in which validity of election itself or some aspect of elective process is.” (See Bryant v. Parker (2019) 580 S.W.3d 408, 415 n.5; Rossano v. Townsend (1999) 9 S.W.3d 357, 362.)