Filed: 5/2/2018 4:34 PM
Eloy R. Garcia, District Clerk
Starr County, Texas

Dulce Morin

NO. DC-18-186
LETICIA GARZA GALVAN and IN THE 229?1 DISTRICT COURT
MARTIE GARCIA VELA 
Contestants, 
v. OF
ELOY VERA and 
BALDEMAR GARZA 
Contestees. STARR COUNTY, TEXAS

Findings of Facts Conclusions of Law

History of the Case

This litigation was brought to challenge the results of the March 2018 Democratic Primary
elections in Starr County, Texas. Contestants were candidates for 229?11 District Judge and
Constitutional County Judge of Starr County, Texas

The challenge is not a ?conventional? challenge seeking to add or delete certain votes in an
election which was decided by a handful of ballots.

Contestant Leticia Garza Galvan lost by 159 votes. Contestant Mattie Garcia Vela lost by 106
votes.

Contestants claim:

1. A failure to properly note which in person voters were assisted while voting and by
whom they were assisted;

2. Mail in votes did not include signatures of ?assistance providers? on the mailed

envelopes;

Mail in votes were counted even though received without postage;

A lack of ballot box security;

Actual ballot box stuf?ng;

. Ineligible persons served on the early voting ballot board; and

7. A ?awed recount process which allowed ineligible persons to sit on the recount board.

Games?

As an additional claim, Contestants raise a constitutional challenge to the Early Voting Ballot
Board?s ability to reject ballots for signature variance without providing a voter ?due process.?

The Evidence

In a ?ve day trial, basically all records of the election were introduced into the record. Election
judges, poll watches, candidates, voters, election administrators and volunteers for the candidates
all testi?ed and presented evidence of the 2018 Starr County Democratic Primary.

Slates

It was generally uncontested that the primary candidates ran as two unof?cial slates. The
Contestants slate was generally known as the ?Starr County Seven.? Members of a ?slate?
campaigned together and held common rallies. Both candidates for County Judge openly
endorsed and supported their slate of candidates. Each County Judge candidate controlled a
cache of ?volunteers? who actively participated in the election. These volunteers ?walked the
streets? and sought out people they encouraged to vote by mail or in person.

Neither candidates for District Judge testi?ed to endorsing other candidates, however the
evidence showed they attended functions of fellow slate members only.

Vehicle Vgting

Starr County has ad0pted a procedures which allows voters to travel to the polls in a vehicle and
then request assistance with voting. An election clerk is to assist the voter unless voter requests
the assistance of another by name. Once requested, that assistant may help the voter only after
taking an appropriate oath and signing the appropriate oath document. The assisted voter?s
ballot is not marked and therefore does not indicate who assisted the voter or even which voter
was assisted.

There is no exact record of how many voters were ?assisted? at the polls. There is a record of
the number of signatures on the oath sheets. The total number of signatures on the oath sheets is
about 1200. (Note: Assistance is allowed for those voters who cannot read or write and for those
that do not speak English. During the trial, an English/Spanish interpreter was required to assist
not less than seven witnesses. The Border communities of Texas are inhabited by many persons
who are not conversant in English.)

Mail Votes

Securing votes in Starr County is a practiced art. Each slate of candidates had
operatives/volunteers actively visiting with prospective early voters encouraging voters to
request mail in ballots. Many of the prospective voters are elderly. Approximately 2000 voters
requested mail in ballots. Of those some 425-450 ultimately voted in person and cancelled out
their mail in ballots. Approximately 147 of the mail in ballots were rejected due to signature
variances. The remaining ballots were accepted. 0f the accepted mail in ballots more than 50
had either no postmark, no stamp, or a post mark with no stamp. Various witness opined how
these post marks anomalies could occur.

Ballot Box Security

During the election, it was the duty of the election administrator, election judge and election
clerks to secure the ballot boxes. Ballot boxes were secured with locks and seals. Voting
machines were secured by seals. The election administrator, election judge, and clerks seem to
have relied on poll watchers to have recorded the seal number placed on the ballot boxes when
the boxes were ?rst sealed. No record of those ?rst seal numbers were noted by the election
of?cial at the beginning of voting.

Contestants presented no direct evidence any of these machine topped voting box seals were
tampered with or replaced. The evidence did show ballot irregularities inside the ballot boxes.
There was undisputed evidence that multiple ballots in various boxes did not bear the signature
of the election judge in charge of those boxes and there was evidence some groups of ballots
were found in sequential order in the bottom of the ballot boxes. Each election judge had been
instructed to shuf?e the ballots and sign the back of each ballot cast. Finding sequential
numbered ballots without a judge?s signature raised the specter of ballot box stuf?ng. Ballots
which were unsigned by the election judge(s) were ultimately counted in the recount process.
These counts were counted after discussions with Jim Boykin of Austin, Texas, the State
Democratic chair. This decision to count the votes was made after Boykin?s consultation with
the Secretary of State.

Mail in Ballot Board

The mail in ballot board was to be appointed by Judith Solis, Democratic chair for Starr County,
Texas. Ms. Solis, a candidate herself, favored the contestant?s slate and is a close personal friend
of Martie Garcia Vela. It is arguable Ms. Solis took no particular care or concern as she is
appointed the mail in ballot board. Three of its members were county employees and there was a
race for County Judge. No objection was made by either contestant to the Board. The early
voting Board rejected 147 ballots for signature irregularities.

Contestants have also raised a constitutional challenge to the procedure allowing a vote denial by
a ballot board without providing due process to the voter. A higher Court may consider the
issue, this Court declines.

Recount Irre arities

Contestants also complain the Recount Board, which was also appointed by the Democratic
chair, Judith Solis was improper as it included members who were election of?cials in the
primary. No objection to the Board was made by either contestant.

During the recount evidence of 15 to 17 sequentially numbered ballots were discovered in one
ballot box and it was established none of these ballots had been signed by the election judge
controlling that box. Armed with this information, all paper ballots were checked for the
electionjudge(s) signature and those without signature were originally going to be rejected.
Judith Solis however conferred with Jim Boykin in Austin and the votes were counted per his
instructions.

Canvas

The Starr County recount was completed on March 22, 2018. It was the duty of the Democratic
chair of Starr County to report the canvas as to the County udge?s race. The duty to canvas the
229th District Judge race contest rested with Jim Boykin. The Democratic chair of Starr County
discussed canvasing with Boykin and the two agreed Boykin would record the canvas for both
races. Boykin reported the canvas results April 2, 2018.

Conclusions of Law

An election should only be declared void upon the showing by clear and convincing evidence
illegal votes were counted, legal voters were improperly denied the right to vote or evidence of
fraud or illegal conduct which deprived the electorate their right to participate in the election.

Assisted in pgrson voters Claim

The election officials of Starr County did not follow every protocol speci?ed in section 64.032 of
Texas Election Code regarding assistance to voters.

The failure of election of election of?cials to comply with the speci?c requirements of the Texas
Election Code Section 64.032 DOES NOT invalidate a ballot.

No evidence was presented establishing any particular voter who was not eligible for assistance
was in fact assisted in voting.

Contestants? claim based on Election Code Chapter 64 is not supported by substantial evidence.
Mail in votes Claim

Chapter 86 of the Election Code sets forth its protocols for the application of ballots, the voting
of ballots, the return of ballots and how assistance may be provided for mail in voting.

The evidence in this case establishes the probability that not all mail in ballots have the name of
person who assisted a voter in voting or mailing in their ballot. The failure of an ?assister? to
sign a mail in ballot DOES NOT invalidate the vote. The failure of an ?assister? to sign the
envelope subjects the ?assister? to criminal sanctions.

Neither the Contestants nor the Contestees presented speci?c evidence of how unstamped,
uncancelled or cancelled without a stamp mail in ballots made their way to the early vote ballot
box. While each side presented their opinions of how this may have occurred neither produced a
U. S. Postal official with knowledge of postal practice regarding mail in ballots.

No clear and convincing evidence established the ?No postage Ballots? were illegally deposited
into the ballot box.

Due Process Claim

The trial court declines to take up Contestants? claim of denial of due process to those 147 votes
which were rejected by the mail in ballot board due to signature variations.

Mail In Board Claim

Contestants? claim of an improperly appointed mail in board were waived when no objection was
made after the board was appointed.

Recount Board Claim

Contestants? claim of an improperly appointed recount board were waived when no objection
was made after the board was appointed.

Ballot Stuf?ng?td Fraud Claim

Contestants? claim of lack of ballot box security and actual ballot box stufling is simply not
supported by the greater weight of evidence presented in this case. The machine used to count
the ballots were properly certified by the Secretary ol'State. The county election administrator
had over a decade of experience conducting elections. Every election judge and election clerk
testi?ed they conducted themselves as they had been trained and tried to their best to conduct a
fair election. The recount verified the original total number of votes.

The election while not perfect was conducted within a zone of reasonable certainty.

While many steps could be taken by the local Democratic Party and the County?s Election
Department to better comply with the protocols of the election code, no clear evidence of
systemic fraudulent or error producing protocols were shown.

The election should be declared valid.

Signed and entered this day of May, 2018.

i\~ts\


Judge Presi in 0

Joel B. Joh on