NO.

____________

LETICIA GARZA GALVAN and § IN THE ______ DISTRICT COURT

MARTIE GARCIA VELA, §
Contestants, §
§
v. § OF
§
ELOY VERA and § STARR COUNTY, TEXAS
BALDEMAR GARZA, §
Contestees.

ORIGINAL PETITION OF
CONTESTANTS LETICIA GARZA GALVAN AND MARTIE GARCIA VELA

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

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

would respectfully show the Court the following:

Discovery Control Plan

1. Pursuant to Rule 190.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff intends to conduct

discovery in this case under Level 3.

2. Because this is a contest of a primary election, it is accelerated under special procedures

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

social security number are 883.

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

security number are 712.

5. Contestee Eloy Vera is an individual residing in Starr County, Texas.

6. Contestee Baldemar Garza is an individual residing in Starr County, Texas.

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

10 days after the date of issuance. Id.

Jurisdiction and Venue

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

determined. Tex. Elec. Code § 232.008(c)(1).

2
9. This court has original and exclusive jurisdiction of this contest pursuant to Texas

Election Code § 221.002.

Notice to Secretary of State

10. A copy of this petition was delivered to the Texas Secretary of State as required by Texas

Election Code § 232.008(d).

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

vote allocation, post-recount, shows:

Starr County Judge

Leticia Garza Galvan 7,032

Eloy Vera 7,191

Judge, 229th Dist. Ct.

Starr Jim Hogg Duval Total

Martie Garcia Vela 6619 898 1928 9445

Baldemar Garza 6961 798 1792 9551

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

contested elections for the following reasons.

Pervasive violations of law governing administration of ballot by mail system

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

the official list of those who requested such ballots.

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

whether such violations were intentional or merely happenstance.

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

supportive of Contestants. Contestees and well-placed supporters and subordinates responsible

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

service or common or contract carrier.

County officials used their official power to manipulate polling locations

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.

22. By contrast, Contestees’ stronger base of support is Rio Grande City.

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

is Commissioner Roy Pena.

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

where contestants have more relative support.

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

not considered or approved by the Commissioners’ Court.

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

require significant travel to Rio Grande City.

Ballot by mail fraud

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

supported the campaigns of Contestees.

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

that they might be investigated or indicted for election code violations.

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

pantry program and work elections.

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

not able to cancel their ballot.

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).

Irregularities in in-person voting

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

of the fraud and illegalities that occurred.

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

complained on February 23 to Elections Administrator John Rodriguez. Rodriguez investigated

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

through early voting.

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

less next to the voters’ names, as required.

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

many and which voters were assisted, and by whom.

9
40. Numerous additional voters were illegally prevented from voting for lack of ID, in

violation of the voter ID regulations and provisional balloting regulations.

Violation of law regarding Early Voting Ballot Board

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

elections, is an officer of the County. Tex. Elec. Code 32.054.

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

EVBB member to decide individually whether to accept or reject a ballot.

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

more than 1,000 ballots.

10
Ballot by mail rejection statute is unconstitutional

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

as a companion case to be consolidated with this contest.

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

reliable audit of the election.

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

actual fraud was apparent.

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

the box fraudulently.

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.

Official resources used to influence the election

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.

2. government employees collecting votes and undertaking campaign operations on

official time, as noted above.

3. improper influence over the Roma city officials to influence the conduct of voting and

placement of campaign spots on the parking lot.

4. Selective enforcement and harassment by DA Escobar to suppress the vote of his

political opponents.

Recount irregularities

59. The recount revealed systematic failure to keep records and follow the statutory security

requirements to protect the integrity of the election.

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

determine the true will of the voters in the contested elections.

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

63. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Contestant respectfully requests:

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