IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY, GILBERTO
HINOJOSA, Chair of the Texas Democratic
Party, JOSEPH DANIEL CASCINO,
SHANDA MARIE SANSING, and
BRENDA LI GARCIA
Plaintiffs,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

v.
GREG ABBOTT, Governor of Texas; RUTH
HUGHS, Texas Secretary of State, DANA
DEBEAUVOIR, Travis County Clerk, and
JACQUELYN F. CALLANEN, Bexar County
Elections Administrator
Defendants.

Case No. 5:20-cv-00438

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

FACTS
1.

Texas has an extensive history of disenfranchising voters and in this moment of

national crisis, it appears poised to do so again without this Court’s intervention
2.

The citizens of this state are in the midst of the worst pandemic in modern history.

Because of a novel coronavirus, and the disease it causes termed COVID-19, federal, state, county
and city officials have ordered various limitations statewide, the central feature of which is to limit
contact between persons.

1

 3.

Public Health Officials warn that government ordered “social distancing” will

probably be in effect for a number of weeks and, even after it is lifted, will in all likelihood be reimposed at additional intervals.
4.

Researchers at Harvard University describe three potential scenarios of upcoming

events and all of them would include a significant barrier to wide-scale in-person voting over the
next year. 1
5.

An influential report from the Imperial College in the United Kingdom 2 that

seemingly convinced the President of the United States to view the coronavirus as a public health
emergency rather than a “hoax,” sets out some startling facts about the severity and longevity of the
crisis facing the public.

https://ethics.harvard.edu/when-can-we-go-out
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-CollegeCOVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
1
2

2

 6.

According to experts, the expected outcome of the various measures ordered by

levels of government, if effective, will be to “flatten the curve,” as these diagrams demonstrate.
7.

These measures will not, of course, eliminate the risk of addition waves or localized

infection hotspots.
8.

These circumstances, public health experts agree, should however extend the

coronavirus infection rate over a longer time period allowing the medical community to prepare
and handle the onslaught of severe cases.
3

 9.

The University of Washington posts real-time data projections of peak death rates

and hospitalizations. 3
10.

These projections show that the peak infection rate of the first wave is later in

Texas than other states.
11.

Although as a nation, we have not yet flattened our first curve of infections, some

other countries have.
12.

For example, South Korea widely hailed as having a model response to the

pandemic, upon releasing its citizens from social distancing orders, have

experienced

new

emerging cases that have required re-imposition of those measures. 4
13.

Indeed, it is very likely true that the globe, and Texas, is in for wave after wave of

new infections until there is an effective treatment, a vaccine and/or greater than approximately
60% of the population survive the epidemic, creating some measure of “herd immunity”. 5
14.

Given these conditions, upcoming elections for federal, state, county, city and other

local offices will be vastly impacted.
15.

Importantly, voter behavior will change.

16.

Historically, most voters in Texas elections vote “in person” where they have

contact with electronic equipment, election personnel, other voters and observers.
17.

These very activities are now heavily discouraged by various government orders and

are being discouraged in an enormous public education campaign.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/south-korea-s-return-normal-interrupted-uptick-coronavirus-casesn1176021
5
http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/communicable-diseases/influenza/data-and-statistics/pandemicinfluenza/about-pandemic-phases
3
4

4

 18.

Even were this pandemic to ease, certain populations will feel the need and/or be

required to continue social distancing.
19.

The upcoming party primary runoff elections and the November General Election

are certain to be influenced by these conditions.
20.

Recent events pertaining to elections scheduled this week in Wisconsin

demonstrate the disarray and voter confusion that results from inadequately planned elections
held during a pandemic.
21.

Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court decision from yesterday served notice that

cases such as this one that seek to remedy these conditions must proceed early and before an
unknown deadline after which the federal courts will not decide the issues.
22.

The Supreme Court held, “[t]his Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower

federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Citing Purcell
v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam). 6
23.

In holding that it was too late for the Supreme Court to remedy constitutional

harms in Wisconsin, the Supreme Court held, “The Court’s decision on the narrow question
before the Court should not be viewed as expressing an opinion on the broader question of
whether to hold the election, or whether other reforms or modifications in election procedures in
light of COVID–19 are appropriate. That point cannot be stressed enough.” 7
24.

These Plaintiffs file this suit at the earliest possible moment after receiving this

Supreme Court guidance so as to ensure timely merits review.
6
7

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf
Id.

5

 25.

It is critically important that election officials and voters begin to prepare for an

election where fewer ballots are cast in-person.
STATE COURT CASE
26.

Given the pandemic conditions and their effects on election procedures, on March

27, 2020, some of these Plaintiffs filed a state court lawsuit seeking to determine application of
state law.
27.

In that case, Plaintiffs contend that existing state law allows voters to elect to cast

their ballots by mail under the circumstances of this pandemic.
28.

TEX. ELEC. CODE § 82.002 provides in full:

Sec. 82.002. DISABILITY. (a) A qualified voter is eligible for early voting by mail
if the voter has a sickness or physical condition that prevents the voter from
appearing at the polling place on election day without a likelihood of needing
personal assistance or of injuring the voter's health.
(b) Expected or likely confinement for childbirth on election day is sufficient cause
to entitle a voter to vote under Subsection (a).
29.

Plaintiffs further contend that participating in social distancing, to prevent known

or unknown spread of what Governor Abbott has described as an “invisible disease” 8 is a “a
sickness or physical condition that prevents the voter from appearing at the polling place on
election day without a likelihood of needing personal assistance or of injuring the voter's health.”
30.

Texas authorities support the conclusion that the mail-in ballots are permitted

under these circumstances.

https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/live-gov-abbott-to-hold-press-conference-on-states-current-effortsagainst-covid-19/
8

6

 31.

According to Texas Attorney General Opinion KP-0009, “[t]he plain language of

section 82.002 does not require that a person satisfy any specific definition or standard of
‘disability’ outside of the Election Code in order to qualify to vote by mail.” In that opinion, the
Attorney General found that a person who claimed a disability but had not been adjudicated by
the Social Security Administration nevertheless qualified for a mail ballot under Section 82.002.
Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No. KP-009 (2015).
32.

In a more recent opinion, the Attorney General opined, “a court would likely

conclude that an individual civilly committed pursuant to chapter 841 and residing at the Center
is eligible to vote by mail …” Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. No, KP-0149 (2017). A person who considers
herself to be confined at home in order to avoid the spread of disease plainly falls into the persons
entitled to vote by mail under this statute and the Court should so declare to prevent uneven
application of this provision and in order to give election officials and voters clarity on the matter.
33.

The manner and procedure of casting absentee ballots, which includes mail-in

ballots, "is mandatory and directed by statutory requirements." Tiller v. Martinez, 974 S.W.2d 769,
775 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.). The Secretary of State has argued that
persons who submit mail ballots without authorization to do so are subject to having their ballots
voided.
34.

A hearing will be held on April 15, 2020 in the state court case.

35.

The state case presents only state law claims seeking to interpret this one provision

of state law; no federal constitutional claims are urged.

7

 36.

The state has filed an intervention in the state court case but notably takes no

position on the merits of whether people between the age of 18 and 65 can avail themselves of
vote by mail procedures. 9
37.

In the event the state courts do not clarify that vote by mail is permitted for all

voters over the age of 18 who are social distancing, the harms described in this case will be even
more severe.
ELECTION ADVISORY
38.

On April 2, 2020, the Texas Secretary of State issued an election advisory

concerning “voting for individuals that may be affected by COVID-19, and in preparing for the
conduct of elections in the context of this public health issue.” 10
39.

Unhelpfully, the advisory gives local election administrators no material guidance

on who can avail themselves of the vote by mail procedures because of the pandemic.
40.

On the one hand, the Advisory envisions more voters using vote by mail:

“Additional Ballot by Mail Supplies: Because there may be a higher volume of ballot by mail
requests in 2020, we strongly recommend that you review your current supply of applications,
balloting materials, and ballot stock for future elections. It is important you have the necessary
supply on hand to meet increased requests you may receive.” 11

Exhibit A – Intervention of State of Texas
Exhibit B - ELECTION ADVISORY N0. 2020-14
11
Id. at p. 7.
9

10

8

 41.

On the other hand, the Advisory says only this as to who can vote by mail:
Voting Procedures Authorized under the Texas Election Code.
Below we have described some of the procedures that are authorized under Texas
law that may be of assistance to voters that are affected by a recent sickness or a
physical disability.
Voting by Mail
In Texas, in order to vote by mail, a voter must have a qualifying reason. A voter
may vote early by mail if they:
will be away from their county on Election Day and during early voting;
are sick or disabled;
are 65 years of age or older on Election Day; or
are confined in jail, but eligible to vote.
One of the grounds for voting by mail is disability. The Election Code defines
“disability” to include “a sickness or physical condition that prevents the voter from
appearing at the polling place on election day without a likelihood of needing
personal assistance or of injuring the voter's health.” (Sec. 82.002). Voters who
meet this definition and wish to vote a ballot by mail must submit an application
for ballot by mail.

42.

The Advisory gives no guidance as to what a disability may be under the statute.

43.

Worse still, the Advisory imagines that a situation where each county could enforce

their own voting methods based upon yet to be sought local court orders:
Other Modifications to Voting Procedures: A court order could provide for
modifications to other voting procedures as necessary to address the impact of
COVID-19 within the jurisdiction. For example, in 2014, Dallas County obtained
a court order authorizing modified voting procedures for individuals affected by the
Ebola quarantine, modeled on the procedures outlined in Section 105.004 of the
Texas Election Code for certain military voters in hostile fire pay zones. If your
county obtains a court order allowing modifications to voting procedures to address
COVID-19, please send a copy of the court order to the Secretary of State’s Office.

9

 44.

Left without Court intervention, the state will march toward upcoming elections

with no plan in place.
45.

Importantly, Article I, Section 28 of the Texas Constitution prescribes that: “No

power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised except by the Legislature.” Tex. Const.
Art. I, § 28.
46.

Thus, if Texas Courts or the Texas Secretary of State do not find that “disability”

under this statute includes people who are social distancing, then effectively every voter under the
age of 65 faces a legally significant increased burden on the voting rights in the current pandemic
circumstances.
47.

Worse still, Texas has a history of threatening criminal prosecution of people who

exercise their right to vote.
48.

Georgia recently announced a criminal investigation squad 12 of people who attempt

to vote by mail and there is every reason to be concerned that Texas will follow suit.
49.

Events unfolding in Wisconsin demonstrate that lack of organized election

procedures under the pandemic circumstances will result in harm to rights guaranteed by the
federal constitution.
50.

Absent lawful, timely, effective state action, this court should ensure compliance

with federal law by providing a remedy.
51.

This case should proceed so that the Court can timely determine, before the

unknown Purcell deadline, the constitutional rights of these Plaintiffs and be in a position to do so
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-elections-chief-launches-effort-against-mailvoting-fraud/uKcFoPbbLnFC0A4nXihaLI/
12

10

 in the event the state court rulings serve to harm these federal rights and/or the state court
proceedings are delayed thus preventing timely state resolution of the state law issue.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
52.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1357, and 2284;

and pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 10301. Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory and injunctive relief is
authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 2284, as well as by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b).
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
53.

Plaintiff Texas Democratic Party is a political party formed under the Texas

Election Code, whose address is 314 East Highland Mall Blvd. Suite 508, Austin, Travis County,
TX 78752.
54.

Plaintiff Gilberto Hinojosa is Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party and a

registered voter in Texas.
55.

Joseph Daniel Cascino is a registered voter in Travis County, Texas who is eligible

to vote, is a resident of Travis County, Texas, a citizen of the United States and who voted inperson in the March 3, 2020 Texas Democratic Primary Election, desires to vote in the Texas
Democratic Party Runoff Election and under the pandemic circumstances would seek to do so by
mail-in ballot.
56.

Shanda Marie Sansing is a registered voter in Travis County, Texas who is eligible

to vote, is a resident of Travis County, Texas, a citizen of the United States and who voted in11

 person in the March 3, 2020 Texas Democratic Primary Election, desires to vote in the Texas
Democratic Party Runoff Election and under the pandemic circumstances would seek to do so by
mail-in ballot.
57.

Brenda Li Garcia is a registered voter in Bexar County, Texas who is eligible to

vote, is a resident of Bexar County, Texas, a citizen of the United States and who voted in-person
in the March 3, 2020 Texas Democratic Primary Election, desires to vote in the Texas Democratic
Party Runoff Election and under the pandemic circumstances would seek to do so by mail-in
ballot.
Defendants
58.

Defendant Greg Abbot is the Governor of Texas and pursuant Article IV, Section I

to the Texas Constitution is the chief executive officer of the State of Texas.
59.

Defendant Ruth Hughs is sued in her official capacity as the Texas Secretary of

State and may be served with process at 900 Congress, Suite 300 Austin, Travis County, Texas
78701.
60.

Defendant Dana DeBeauvoir is sued in her official capacity as the Travis County

Clerk and Election Administrator and may be served with process at 5501 Airport Blvd, Austin,
Travis County, TX 78751.
61.

Defendant Jacquelyn F. Callanen, is sued in her official capacity as the Bexar

County Elections Administrator and may be served with process at 1103 S. Frio, Suite 100, San
Antonio, TX 78207

12

 CLAIMS
Count 1
Race and Language Minority Discrimination, Section 2, Voting Rights Act
62.

Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

63.

These Election Conditions 13 violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C.

§ 10301, because they results in a denial of the right to vote on account of race and language
minority, in that, under the totality of the circumstances, Plaintiffs and minority voters are denied
an equal opportunity to participate effectively in the political process.
64.

These Election Conditions also violate Section 2 because they deny and abridges

the right to vote on account of race and language minority.
Count 2
Race Discrimination, 14th Amendment
65.

Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

66.

These Election Conditions violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States because they purposely deny equal protection in voting to Plaintiffs and other
minority voters on account of race and ethnic origin.

13

As described in the Facts section above.

13

 Count 3
Race Discrimination, 15th Amendment
67.

Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

68.

These Election Conditions violate the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States because they purposely deny and abridge the right to register and vote to
Plaintiffs and other minority voters on account of race and ethnic origin.
Count 4
Non-racial discrimination in Voting, 14th Amendment
69.

Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

70.

These Election Conditions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution because they mandate arbitrary and disparate
treatment of voters and deny equal access to the right to vote to eligible citizens.
71.

These Election Conditions impose severe burdens on voters, in time,

inconvenience and expense. The burden is severe whether measured by how it affects a single
voter or by how many voters it affects.
72.

These Election Conditions facially discriminate between classes of voters (such as

between those having and those over the age of 65 or those with a disability that do not fit under
the ultimate definition the state or various counties impose).
73.

Either the severe burden described above, standing alone as applied, or the facial

discrimination, standing alone, are sufficient to require that These Election Conditions be judged
by strict scrutiny, and can survive only if their specific terms meet a compelling state interest
14

 (actual, not hypothetical) and if each of its provisions is narrowly tailored to meet that compelling
interest in the least restrictive way. In this inquiry, the burden of proof is on Texas. These
Election Conditions cannot meet this exacting test.
74.

Indeed, these Election Conditions cannot even meet the less exacting test

(applicable where a voting regulation is not burdensome and does not classify on its face) of
balancing Texas’ interest claimed here (modest at best) against the critically important interests of
Plaintiffs and other Texas registered voters who are disfranchised by these Election Conditions,
especially as that balancing test is applied against the background of Texas’ longstanding and
recent history of purposeful racial and ethnic discrimination, and in light of the number of poor,
disabled and under age 65 voters targeted by these Election Conditions.
Count 5
Denial of Free Speech, First Amendment applied through the 14th Amendment
75.

Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

76.

Voting and participating in the election process is a form of expression which is the

ultimate in free speech and association entitled to First Amendment protection. In light of the
Supreme Court’s cases giving strong First Amendment protection to campaign funds spent to
influence voters, the voters themselves can hardly be entitled to less protection.
77.

As a restriction on free speech and association, these Election Conditions must be

judged by the same strict scrutiny outlined above, a scrutiny that these Election Conditions cannot
survive.

15

 Count 6
Abridgment of the Right to Vote based on Age, 26th Amendment
78.

Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

79.

These Election Conditions amount to abridgment of the right to vote based on the

age of the voter.
80.

All voters under the age of 65 face an unconstitutional burden, because of their

age, to their fundamental right to vote.
Count 7
Bush v. Gore
81.

Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

82.

These Election Conditions amount to disparate election rules applied to the voters

within this state.
83.

For the reasons stated in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, these

conditions must be enjoined for being violative of constitutional guarantees.
EQUITY
84.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Unless restrained, Defendants will

injure and continue to injure Plaintiffs and other Texas voters in the manner set forth above.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:
85.

Issue a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 57, declaring that these Election Conditions are illegal and
16

 unconstitutional as described above, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C.
10301 and the First, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
86.

Enjoin the Defendants, their agents, employees, and those persons acting in

concert with them, from enforcing or giving any effect to the requirements of these Election
Conditions, including enjoining Defendants from conducting any elections utilizing these Election
Conditions.
87.

Make all further orders as are just, necessary, and proper to ensure complete

fulfillment of this Court’s declaratory and injunctive orders in this case.
88.

Issue an order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ costs, expenses and

reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the prosecution of this action, as authorized by the Voting
Rights Act and the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act of 1976, 52 U.S.C. §§ 10310(e) & 42
U.S.C. § 1988.
89.

Retain jurisdiction and require Texas to obtain preclearance pursuant to Section

3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10302(c) with respect to its voting practices and
procedures.
90.

Grant such other and further relief as it deems proper and just.

This the 6th day of April, 2020.

17

 Respectfully submitted,
TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY
By: /s/ Chad W. Dunn
Chad W. Dunn
General Counsel
State Bar No. 24036507
Brazil & Dunn, LLP
4407 Bee Caves Road, Suite 111
Austin, Texas 78746
Telephone: (512) 717-9822
Facsimile: (512) 515-9355
chad@brazilanddunn.com
K. Scott Brazil
State Bar No. 02934050
Brazil & Dunn, LLP
13231 Champion Forest Drive, Suite 406
Houston, Texas 77069
Telephone: (281) 580-6310
Facsimile: (281) 580-6362
scott@brazilanddunn.com
Dicky Grigg
State Bar No. 08487500
Law Office of Dicky Grigg, P.C.
4407 Bee Caves Road, Suite 111
Austin, Texas 78746
Telephone: 512-474-6061
Facsimile: 512-582-8560
dicky@grigg-law.com
Martin Golando
The Law Office of Martin Golando, PLLC
SBN #: 24059153
N. Saint Mary’s, Ste. 700
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(210) 892-8543
martin.golando@gmail.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
18