LEAL WANTS PENA'S BISD WIN THROWN OUT, NEW ELECTION

 By Juan Montoya

In an unprecedented legal maneuver, attorneys for Marisa Leal, a candidate who lost by a narrow 8-vote margin against her opponent – Brownsville Independent School District Place 6 incumbent Minerva Peña - are asking a court to declare the results void and order a new election.

They argue that because of numerous Texas Election Code violations allegedly occurred in the Nov. 3 election, early voting, and mail-in voting that a true winner cannot be ascertained and that a visiting judge nullify the outcome and call for a new election.

The lawsuit filed December 30, within the 30-day period following the December 3, 2020 final and official canvas and certification of the November 4 election for Place 6 of the Board of the Brownsville Independent School District.

Peña, who was seeking a fourth term on the board, filed for a recount after the final tally in the Nov. 3 election showed Leal had won by one vote, 16,535 votes to 16,534 for Peña.

The recount came out 16,552 for Peña and 16,544 for Leal, with the third candidate in the race Joe A. Rodriguez receiving 10,575 votes.

The certified vote allocation gave Peña 16,552 votes, 16544 votes for Leal and 10,575 votes for Joe A.Rodriguez, a difference of eight votes between the two top vote-getters.

Leal's attorney – former Cameron County Judge and current Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa – claims in the lawsuit that this was not the true outcome of the election and that various violations of the Texas Election Code worked against his client.

Among some of the allegations of code violations are:

a. That numerous votes were illegally cast by individuals who were registered to vote at an address not a residence and not their residence as defined by the Texas Elections Code and therefore were not legally registered to vote in the election. Had these illegal votes not been counted, they claim, a different and correct result would be obtained in the election. 

b. That numerous voters casting votes during early vote and on election day were assisted at the time that they they voted even though the voters were not eligible for assistance in reading or completing the ballot,

c. That numerous voters casting votes during early vote and on election day received assistance that was not limited to that authorized by the Texas Election Code at a polling place,

d. That numerous mail-in ballots that were counted should not have been counted due to numerous violations of various requirements in the Texas Elections Code. The following violations of the Texas Elections Code occurred at the time that these numerous mail-in ballots were cast:

(a) the voter is not eligible to vote by mail, 

(b) the voter did not sign the application for a mail-in ballot, 

(c) the voter was assisted in completing or signing the mail-in ballot application by a person other than the early voting clerk or a deputy but the witness failed to provide the information required 

(e) the voter is not eligible for assistance in reading or completing the ballot but was assisted in doing so

(f) the assistant failed to sign the oath prescribed by the Election Code

(g) the assistant failed to enter his per her “signature, printed name, and residence address on the official carrier envelope of the voter,” 

(h) 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 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

(i) the voter did not seal the carrier envelope containing his or her ballot before the ballot and envelope left the voter’s hand

(j) the voter received assistance that was not limited to that authorized by the Texas Election Code at a polling place,  including encouraging the voter how to vote or even pressuring or coercing votes;

(k) the person providing assistance prepared the voter’s ballot “without direction from the voter.

(l) the mail ballot carrier envelope did not contain the signature of the alleged voter,

(m) the alleged “mark” of the alleged mail ballot voter was not witnessed by any person, The lawsuit n ballots that were cast in violation of the Texas Elections Code  were illegal and therefore cannot be counted.

The lawsuit continues that "because the number of illegal votes cast exceeds the difference in the total votes cast for the Contestant and those cast for the Contestee, the Court cannot ascertain the true outcome of the election and, the Court must declare the election void and order a new election.

They also ask that "the Court determine that the election be declared void as it is impossible to ascertain the true results and issue an order for a new election for the contested office, disqualify local district judges from hearing the case, and assign a visiting judge to hear it.

The lawsuit was filed December 30 in the 107th District Court.