APPEALS COURT DENIES MINERVA PENA'S ELECTION APPEAL

Special to El Rrun-Rrun

The 13th Court of Appeals has denied Brownsville Independent School District board member Minerva Peña's appeal of a district court ruling that void\ed her 2020 victory against Marisa F. Leal and ordered a new election. 

The court issued its ruling on Peña's appeal Thursday.

The trials court found that the  margin of victory was eight votes and that the irregularities in the election process accounted for 24 and exceeded the margin of victory. 

The appeals court found that the trial court had not erred in determining that the outcome of the election was materially affected and that  it was not necessary for the trial court to determine how the individual voters voted.

Additionally, they ruled that the trial court was not required to follow Peña’s proposed formula, which depended on a determination that a percentage of the twenty-four illegal votes went to a certain candidate. 

"Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declared the election void," the ruling stated. "We overrule Peña’s sole issue."

In her appeal, Peña claimed that the trial court’s had erred in its judgment favor of  Leal declaring the 2020 general election for the board of trustees, Place 6, of the BISD void and ordering a new election. , Peña contended that the trial court used the wrong formula in determining that twenty-four illegally cast votes “were equal to or greater than the number of votes necessary to materially affect the outcome of the election."

The appeals court affirmed the trial court's ruling on the issue. 

On the November 3, 2020 the election was held and three candidates ran for the position, including Peña and Leal. Eventually, Peña was declared the winner of the election. She won by eight votes. 

Leal sued contesting the result of the election. A bench trial was held. The trial court ruled in favor of Leal, declared the election void, and ordered a new election. In its order, the trial court stated, “The Court further finds that the twenty-four (24) illegal votes cast in this election is equal to or greater than the number of votes necessary to change the outcome of the election.” 

The trial court found that several of the votes were illegal as follows: 

(1) sixteen mail-in voters used the same single address that was clearly not the residence of all sixteen mail-in voters;

(2) three mail-in ballots had improper signatures on the envelope of the mail-in ballots; and 

(3) five voters received unlawful assistance when they voted. Peña filed a motion for new trial claiming that “the minimum number of votes needed to change the outcome of the election was over 100 votes.” Peña argued that the trial court’s “error comes from [its] failure to analyze the distribution of the votes that are deducted from each of the three (3) party’s vote count.” 

The trial court denied Peña’s motion for new trial and she appealed.

The appeals court disagreed and ruled that the trial court acted within its discretion and declared that they could not reverse the judgment simply because we might have reached a different result. 

Further, it stated that "a trial court is not required to determine 'for whom an illegal vote was cast,' and instead, “the code provides that ‘if the tribunal finds that illegal votes were cast but cannot ascertain how the voters voted, the tribunal shall consider those votes in making its judgment."

(El Rrun-Rrun is indebted to blogger Robert Wightman-Cervantes for his assistance in providing the appeals court ruling.)