Jane Nelson in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas v. Jarrett Woodward, Heather Couchman, Amber Cloy, Tommie Dickinson, Travis Eubanks, Amanda Eubanks, Traci Jones, Lars Kuslich, Michelle Pique, Madelon Highsmith, and Sharon Cotton, Voters of Bexar County

ACCEPTED 15-24-00074-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/5/2025 6:07 PM No. 15-24-00074-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK In the Court of Appeals for the Fifteenth Judicial District Austin, Texas Jane Nelson, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas, Appellants, v. Jarrett Woodward, Heather Couchman, Amber Cloy, Tommie Dickinson, Travis Eubanks, Amanda Eubanks, Traci Jones, Lars Kuslich, Michelle Pique, Madelon Highsmith, and Sharon Cotton, Voters of Bexar County, Appellees, On Appeal from the 261st Judicial District Court, Travis County

APPELLEE KUSLICH’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE Appellant Jane Nelson filed a Supplemental Brief on February 20, 2025 in response to Appellee Kuslich’s Second Amended Brief.

As part of the Supplemental Brief, Appellant Nelson objected to the inclusion of the three petitions of the Dacus v. Parker case in the appendix of the Second Amended Brief, and she moved to strike them from the brief. See Appellant Jane Nelson’s Supplemental Brief ¶ 3. This is a response to that objection and motion to strike as well as a motion for this Court to take judicial notice of the three petitions from the Dacus v. Parker case.

For Appellant Nelson’s objection and motion, she relies on the fact that the petitions were not included as part of the record received from the trial court, and she reasons they should therefore not be considered by this Court. She supports this conclusion by citing Scott v. Weems, 575 S.W.3d 357 (Tex. 2019), wherein the Texas Supreme Court held that the record supplementation rules, such as Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c), cannot be used to create new evidence. See Id. at 366-67; See Id. at n. 41.

Notably, Appellant Nelson does not object to anything in the petitions themselves or to their relevance to the instant case, merely to their inclusion in the Second Amended Brief.

However, Appellant Nelson misstates case law by saying that only documents introduced at the trial court level can be considered as part of the appellate record. See Appellant Jane Nelson’s Supplemental Brief ¶ 3. The Texas Supreme Court has held that it is appropriate for appellate courts to take judicial notice of facts outside the record in certain instances, as follows: An appellate court may take judicial notice of a relevant fact that is “either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Tex.R. Evid. 201(b); see Office of Pub. Util.

Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex. , 878 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam). Judicial notice of such a fact is mandatory if a party requests it and supplies “the necessary information.” Tex.R. Evid. 201(d). Under this standard, a court will take judicial notice of another court's records if a party provides proof of the records.

See, e.g., MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton , 329 S.W.3d 475, 497 n. 21 (Tex. 2010); WorldPeace v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 183 S.W.3d 451, 459 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).

Freedom Commc'ns, Inc. v. Coronado , 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012). Furthermore, “[a]s a general rule, appellate courts take judicial notice of facts outside the record only to determine jurisdiction over an appeal or to resolve matters ancillary to decisions which are mandated by law[.]” SEI Business Systems, Inc. v. Bank One Texas, N.A., 803 S.W.2d 838, 841 (Tex. App. 1991). These holdings have been used by various appellate courts to add documents outside of the record to help solve jurisdictional disputes. See, e.g., Bridgeport Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Williams, 447 S.W.3d 911, 916 n. 4 (Tex. App. 2014) (“Although the letter is not in the appellate record, we take judicial notice of undisputed facts contained in the letter because they impact our jurisdictional inquiry.”); Lantana Ridge Prop. Owners Ass'n v. SJWTX, Inc., NO. 03-19-00303-CV at *6-7 (Tex. App. Apr. 16, 2020) (“...[T]he fact for which Lantana Ridge requests judicial notice goes to the jurisdictional inquiry; it is not an adjudicative fact going to the merits. We take ‘judicial notice of undisputed facts’ when ‘they impact our jurisdictional inquiry.’”) (citation omitted).

Therefore, while it is usually true that parties in an appeal cannot supplement the record to add new facts, it is well within this Court’s ability to take judicial notice of facts outside the record to aid in their determination of whether Appellees have standing.

Accordingly, I request that this Court take judicial notice of the three petitions that were attached to Appellee Kuslich’s Second Amended Brief. Those petitions are from the case Dacus v. Parker that had cause number 2010-81591 and was tried before the 234th Judicial District Court. As the last page of each petition indicates, each one is a certified copy that was purchased from the District Clerk of Harris County. See Appellee Kuslich’s Second Amended Brief ¶¶ 67, 74, 82. As also indicated on their last pages, the petitions were authenticated and transmitted in accordance with Texas Government Code sections 51.301 and 406.013. See Appellee Kuslich’s Second Amended Brief ¶¶ 67, 74, 82. I make this request because those petitions provide important context for the conclusions of the Texas Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, and they show that other litigants in other election contests did not allege particularized injuries yet they had standing.

Prayer For the foregoing reasons, I pray that this Court overrule Appellant Nelson’s objection, deny her motion to strike, and grant my motion for judicial notice.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lars Kuslich Lars Kuslich P.O. Box 1908 Liberty, TX 77575 936-346-5464 [email protected]

Certificate of Conference

I have conferred with all parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion for judicial notice in a good faith effort to resolve the issue raised. The Appellants are opposed to the filing of the motion for judicial notice.

/s/ Lars Kuslich Lars Kuslich P.O. Box 1908 Liberty, TX 77575 936-346-5464 [email protected]

Certificate of Service I, Lars Kuslich, certify that a true and correct copy of APPELLEE KUSLICH’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE was filed and served via e-service efile (eFileTexas.gov) on February 24, 2025 to all other Appellees and to:

Stephanie A. Criscione Texas Bar No. 24109768 William D. Wassdorf Texas Bar No. 24103022 Assistant Attorneys General General Litigation Division Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Tel: (512) 463-2120 Fax: (512) 320-0667 [email protected] [email protected]

By: /s/ Lars Kuslich Lars Kuslich P.O. Box 1908 Liberty, TX 77575 936-346-5464 [email protected]