Jane Nelson in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas v. Jarrett Woodward and Heather Couchman

ACCEPTED 15-24-00038-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/18/2025 4:39 PM No. 15-24-00038-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK In the Court of Appeals for the 15th COURT FILED IN OF APPEALS Fifteenth Judicial District 4/18/2025 4:39:24 PM AUSTIN, TEXAS

Austin, Texas CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk ______________ Jane Nelson in her Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas, Appellant, v. Jarrett Woodward and Heather Couchman, Appellees. ______________ On Appeal from the 261st Judicial District Court, Travis County ______________ MOTION FOR REHEARING ______________

Jarrett Woodward Heather Couchman 7520 Potranco Rd. 16511 Stone Ridge Dr. Apt 2616 San Antonio, TX 78232 San Antonio, TX 78251 [email protected] [email protected] 210-943-6020 210-693-7457 Pro Se Appellee Pro Se Appellee Table of Contents INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................3 BASIS FOR REHEARING .....................................................................................4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS ...................................................................4 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................5 I. APPELLEES HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING ................................5 II. DUE PROCESS INCLUDES THE AMENDING OF THE PETITION .......7 III. TEXAS SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT ..................................................9 PRAYER .................................................................................................................12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................13

Index of Authorities Cases De Shazo v. Webb.......................................................................................................9 De Shazo v. Webb, 109 S.W.2d 264, 269–70 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1937, no writ) (emphasis added), certified question answered, 113 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. 1938) ....10 Duncan v. Willis, 157 Tex. 316, 320, 302 S.W.2d 627, 630 (1957)..........................6 Eubanks, 2024 WL 4886621......................................................................................7 Jorolan v. Eads No. 02-23-00338-CV (Tex. App. 2nd Dist. Nov. 2024, pet. reversed and remanded) ....................................................................................9, 11 Lubbock County, Texas v. Trammel’s Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 585 (Tex. 2002)............................................................................................................11 Massay v. Studer, 11 S.W.2d 227, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1928, no writ) .......10 Nelson v. Eubanks, No. 15-24-00037-CV, 2024 WL 4886621 (Tex. App.–15th Dist. Nov. 26, 2024, pet. denied) ............................................................................7 Nelson v. True Tex., 685 S.W.3d 187, 195–96 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2024, no pet.) ...............................................................................................................................11 Porter v. Nemir, 900 S.W.2d 376, 384 (Tex.App.- Austin 1995, no writ) ................8 Scoresby v. Santillan, 287 S.W.3d 319, 324 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009), aff’d, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011) ................................................................................10 Rules T.R.C.P. 63 .................................................................................................................8 Statutes Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(1) .........................................................................................5 Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(2) .........................................................................................6 Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(3) .........................................................................................6 Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(4)(A)(ii) ...............................................................................6 Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(4)(A)(iv) ..............................................................................6 Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(5) .........................................................................................6 Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(7)(B) ....................................................................................6 Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.002 ..............................................................................................5 Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003(a) ....................................................................................8 Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003(a)(1)................................................................................8 Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003(b) ....................................................................................8 Tex. Elec. Code § 231.002 .........................................................................................8 Tex. Elec. Code § 233.014(g) ....................................................................................8 Constitutional Provisions Tex. Const. art I § 19..................................................................................................9 Tex. Const. art I § 2....................................................................................................5

Tex. Const. art I § 27..............................................................................................5, 7 Tex. Const. art I § 8....................................................................................................5

TO THE PANEL ON THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Basis for Rehearing 1. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals issued an unconstitutional order reversing the trial courts order and dismissing this election contest on April 3, 2025 which violates Appellees’ constitutionally protected activities.

a. Whether this court erred in dismissing Appellee’s election contest for lack of standing deprives Appellees’ of free speech.

b. Whether this court erred in dismissing Appellee’s election contest for lack of valid claims deprives Appellee’s of due process.

2. As an intermediate appellate court, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals is bound to follow Texas Supreme Court authority.

Summary of the Arguments I. Appellees filed and served a valid election contest upon Appellant on November 17, 2023, prior to the completion of the final canvass. Appellees possess constitutional standing to participate in special legislative proceedings.

Dismissal on standing violates Appellees’ civil rights.

II. Appellees stated a proper claim under Texas Election Code and are entitled to amend their petition without leave of the court up to 7 days prior to trial.

Election contests are governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

III. The Texas Supreme Court decided over 80 years ago that the Texas Constitution authorizes such standing distinct and apart from federal constitutional imperatives.

Argument I. Appellees Have Constitutional Standing “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.” Tex. Const. art I § 2 “Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech” Tex. Const. art I § 8 “The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to…apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstance.” Tex. Const. art I § 27.

The Civil Practices and Remedies Code exists “to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury.” Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.002 "’Communication’ includes the making or submitting of a statement or document in any form or medium, including oral, visual, written, audiovisual, or electronic.” Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(1) “’Exercise of the right of association’ means to join together to collectively express, promote, pursue, or defend common interests relating to a governmental proceeding or a matter of public concern.” Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(2) "Governmental proceeding" means a proceeding, other than a judicial proceeding, by an officer, official, or body of this state or a political subdivision of this state, including a board or commission, or by an officer, official, or body of the federal government.” Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(5) “’Exercise of the right of free speech’ means a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern.” Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(3) A fraudulent election being conducted with prohibited voting systems and illegal votes being counted is a matter of political interest to the community. Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(7)(B) “’Exercise of the right to petition’ means: a communication in or pertaining to an official proceeding, other than a judicial proceeding, to administer the law” Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(4)(A)(ii) and “a legislative proceeding”. Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001(4)(A)(iv) “An election contest is not an ordinary lawsuit but is a special legislative proceeding.” Duncan v. Willis, 157 Tex. 316, 320, 302 S.W.2d 627, 630

(1957).

It is not disputed that “the Voters’ contest was both filed and served before the actual deadline in the Election Code” and “the Secretary received the petition and citation “before the final official canvass [was] completed.” “the only prerequisite for suit or provision for notice imposed by state statute on persons filing an election contest is to file and serve the Secretary “before the final official canvass is completed.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 233.014(b). The Voters complied with that requirement.” Nelson v. Eubanks, No. 15-24-00037-CV, 2024 WL 4886621 (Tex. App.–15th Dist. Nov. 26, 2024, pet. denied) “In other words, the requirement of a particularized harm that is actual or imminent is” not “constitutionally required because” Appellees’ are engaged in constitutionally protected activities of a legislative proceeding. This court’s opinion confirms Appellee’s complied with the only prerequisite for filing an election contest. The court lacks constitutional authority to dismiss this case for lack of standing and prevent Appellees from exercising their right to free speech and to redress their grievances by petition. Tex. Const. art I § 27

II. Due Process Includes the Amending of the Petition The court erred in the dismissal of this contest for lack of valid claims to plead an election contest. “[T]o allege a viable claim under the Election Code, the

Voters had to allege facts that could support a claim that the true outcome would have been different if their claims were valid.” Eubanks, 2024 WL 4886621, at *5 (citing Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003). As in Eubanks, Appellees assert that the true result of the election cannot be ascertained, but they do not explain why that is so.

Id.” “Contestants assert that the outcome of the contested election, as shown by the official results and official canvass, is not the true outcome. Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003(a). Contestants contend that illegal votes were counted. Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003(a)(1). “In this title, ‘illegal vote’ means a vote that is not legally countable.” Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003(b).” CR pg 4 Appellees’ clearly made a claim that covers the scope of inquiry for election contests. “Any question relating to the validity or outcome of a constitutional amendment election may be raised in an election contest. A contest is the exclusive method for adjudicating such questions.” Tex. Elec. Code § 233.014(g) Appellees have never amended their original petition. “The rules governing civil suits apply to election contests in the district court.” Tex. Elec. Code § 231.002 “Parties may amend their pleadings…as they may desire by filing such pleas with the clerk at such time as to not operate as a surprise to the opposite party”. T.R.C.P. 63 The right to amend more than seven days before the date of trial is only subject to the opposing party’s right to show surprise. Porter v. Nemir,

900 S.W.2d 376, 384 (Tex.App.- Austin 1995, no writ). Dismissing this election contest without affording Appellees the opportunity to amend their petition silences their free speech without due process under the law.

“No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.” Tex. Const. art I § 19. “Civil injury, if any damage done to a person or a property that is precipitated by a breach of contract, negligence, breach of duty, any harm done to a person by the acts or omissions of another or loss of a legal right, my legal right to cast a legal ballot in illegal election equipment, that the Contestee was negligent in breach of duty.” RR 27 If this court disagrees with the district court’s ruling that the pleadings were sufficient to state a viable claim, then it is a curable defect as appellees have not amended their petition. The only proper ruling in this case, is to remand back to the district court and request Appellees amend their petition to provide clarification on their claims of illegal votes being counted and additional information on how “the true result of the election cannot be ascertained.”

III. Texas Supreme Court Precedent “In De Shazo v. Webb, the supreme court expressly held that an amendment to Article V, Section 8 of the Texas constitution––by expressly conferring jurisdiction to adjudicate “contested elections” upon district courts––authorized the legislature to grant standing or “capacity” to citizen contestants, including residents and qualified voters, without a showing of a justiciable interest in the outcome of the election, i.e., a concrete, particularized injury distinct from the public at large. 113 S.W.2d 519, 520 (Tex. 1938) (answering certified question from the Eleventh Court of Appeals).” Jorolan v. Eads No. 02-23-00338-CV (Tex. App. 2nd Dist. Nov. 2024, pet. reversed and remanded) “observing that the legislature, “recognizing the fact that a wrong might be perpetrated, for which there was no remedy,” enacted the same statute “in order that a remedy might be furnished whereby fraudulent elections . . . might be contested”)). Stated differently, because the legislature understood that the absence of a justiciable interest—i.e., the concrete, particularized injury required for civil suits—in individual citizens and voters left the public at large without remedy for fraudulent elections, it conferred standing upon them by statute to contest such elections without demonstrating such a justiciable interest.” Massay v. Studer, 11 S.W.2d 227, 228 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 1928, no writ) Furthermore, “there is no doubt that the issue of whether a citizen contestant required a concrete, particularized injury to maintain an election contest was before the supreme court in De Shazo—and the court confirmed that no such injury was a prerequisite for standing lest the public at large lose a remedy for fraudulent elections. De Shazo v. Webb, 109 S.W.2d 264, 269–70 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1937, no writ) (emphasis added), certified question answered, 113 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. 1938) “As an intermediate appellate court, we are bound to follow Texas Supreme Court authority. See, e.g., Scoresby v. Santillan, 287 S.W.3d 319, 324 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009), aff’d, 346 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2011). As that court has stated, “It is not the function of a court of appeals to abrogate or modify established precedent[; t]hat function lies solely with” the Texas Supreme Court.

Lubbock County, Texas v. Trammel’s Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 585 (Tex. 2002). Given the continued authority of De Shazo, the unambiguous language of Section 233.002, and the undisputed status of Appellants as “qualified voters” in Denton County, we hold that Appellants need not demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury distinct from the public at large to maintain their standing to contest the transportation-bond election; the trial court erred in so holding. See Nelson v. True Tex., 685 S.W.3d 187, 195–96 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2024, no pet.) (considering associational standing of qualified voters under Section 233.002 to contest the outcome of a statewide constitutional amendment election without discussing any necessity for a concrete, particularized injury distinct from the public at large).” Jorolan v. Eads No. 02-23-00338-CV (Tex. App. 2nd Dist. Nov. 2024, pet. reversed and remanded)

Prayer Appellees move this court to grant this petition for rehearing; confirm Appellees have standing to engage in constitutionally protected activity, reverse the unconstitutional order of dismissal, provide the opportunity to amend the election contest petition, remand back to the district court for further proceedings and grant all other relief to which Appellees may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jarrett Woodward Jarrett Woodward 210-693-7457 [email protected] Pro Se Appellee /s/ Heather Couchman Heather Couchman 210-943-6020 [email protected] Pro Se Appellee

Certificate of Service On April 18, 2025, this document was served on Appellant via efiling and electronic mail.

/s/ Jarrett Woodward Jarrett Woodward Pro Se Appellant

Certificate of Compliance I certify that this brief is in compliance with T.R.C.P. 9.4. Microsoft Word reports that this brief contains 1,833 words, excluding exempted text.

/s/ Jarrett Woodward Jarrett Woodward Pro Se Appellant

No. 15-24-00038-CV 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, Appellant, v. Jarrett Woodward and Heather Couchman, Appellees. ______________ On Appeal from the 261st Judicial District Court, Travis County ______________ Appendix ______________ TAB 1. T.R.C.P. 63..……………………….……………………………A 2. Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001..…………………..……...…………..…B 3. Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.002…………………...….……………….…C 4. Tex. Const. art. I § 19….……………………..………………….D 5. Tex. Const. art. I § 2……….………………..….……………..…E 6. Tex. Const. art. I § 27……………………..…………..……....…F 7. Tex. Const. art. I § 8…….……………………...…….………….G 8. Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003……………………..….………….…H 9. Tex. Elec. Code § 231.002……………...……..…………….…...I 10.Tex. Elec. Code § 233.014(g)……..……………...…..………….J TAB A: T.R.C.P. 63 https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457525/texas-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf

TAB B: Tex. C.P.R.C. § 27.001 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.27.htm#27

TAB C: Tex. C.P.R.C. §§ 27.002 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.27.htm#27

TAB D: Tex. Const. art. I § 19 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm

TAB E: Tex. Const. art. I § 2 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm

TAB F: Tex. Const. art. I § 27 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm

TAB G: Tex. Const. art. I § 8 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm

TAB H: Tex. Elec. Code § 221.003 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/el.221.htm

TAB I: Tex. Elec. Code § 231.002 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/el.231.htm

TAB: J Tex. Elec. Code § 233.014(g) https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/el.233.htm

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Envelope ID: 99848265 Filing Code Description: Motion for Rehearing Filing Description: Motion for Rehearing Status as of 4/18/2025 4:40 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Zachary L.Rhines [email protected] 4/18/2025 4:39:24 PM SENT Heather Couchman [email protected] 4/18/2025 4:39:24 PM SENT Jarrett Woodward [email protected] 4/18/2025 4:39:24 PM SENT Carrisa Stiles [email protected] 4/18/2025 4:39:24 PM ERROR