DISMISS and Opinion F iled October 21, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01113-CV IN RE TRACI R. JONES AND SH ARON M. COTTON, Relators Original Proceeding from Ellis County, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith Opinion by Justice Smith Before the Court is relators’ Oc tober 18, 2022 Emergency Petition for Emergency Injunction Against Electronic Voting Systems against respondents Randy Stinson, Ellis County Commissioner, Pr ecinct 1; Lane Grayson, Ellis County Commissioner, Precinct 2; Paul Perry, Ellis County Commissioner, Precinct 3; Kyle Butler, Ellis County Commissioner, Precinct 4; Todd Little, Ellis County Judge; and Krystal Valdez, Ellis County Clerk. Relators request various relief prohib iting respondents from implementing and utilizing computerized equipment to admi nister the collection, storage, counting, and tabulation of votes in the November 2022 election. Relators request a writ of injunction under § 273.081 of the election code. See T EX . E LEC . C ODE A NN . § 273.081 (“A person who is be ing harmed or is in da nger of being harmed by a–2– violation or threatened violation of this code is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief to prevent the violation from continui ng or occurring.”). Relators also cite § 273.061 of the election code, which aut horizes petitions for writ of mandamus to be filed in connection with the holding of elections. See id. § 273.061 (“[A] court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of any duty imposed by law in connection with the hold ing of an election . . . , regardless of whether the person responsible for performi ng the duty is a public officer.”). Thus, we construe relators’ petiti on as a petition for writ of injunction and a petition for writ of mandamus. A petition for a writ of injunction filed in an appellate court must comply with the requirements of rule 52. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(a) (“Each court of appeals . . . may issue . . . all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.”); T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.1 (“An original appellate proceeding seeking extraordinary relief—such as [an] . . . injunction . . . —is commenced by filing a petition with the clerk of the appropriate a ppellate court.”). Similarly, a proceeding to obtain a writ of mandamus under § 273. 063 of the election code shall be conducted in accordance with the rules pertaining to or iginal proceedings of the court in which the petition is filed. See T EX . E LEC . C ODE A NN . § 273.062. Relators’ petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in numerous respects. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.1, 52.3(a), 52.3(d)(1)–(3), 52.3(f)–(h), 52.3(j), 52.3(k). For instance, relators’ petition is not properly certified.–3– See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j); In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). The petition is also not supported by an appendix or record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k)(1), 52.7(a)(1); Butler , 270 S.W.3d at 759. Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a su fficient record to s how they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Without a certified petition and appendix or r ecord, relators have not carried their burden. See Butler , 270 S.W.3d at 758–59. But even if these defects did not exist, to the extent relato rs seek a writ of injunction under § 273.081 of th e election code, we do not ha ve jurisdiction to grant any sort of writ other than a writ of ma ndamus in an original proceeding under the election code. See T EX . E LEC . C ODE A NN . § 273.081; In re Meyer , No. 05-16-00063- CV, 2016 WL 375033, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dalla s Feb. 1, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Sepulveda , No. 05-10-01112-CV, 2010 WL 3476670, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sep. 7, 2010, or ig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also In re Jones , Nos. 05-18-00065-CV, 05-18-00067-CV, 05-18- 00068-CV, 2018 WL 549531, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2018, orig. pr oceeding) (mem. op.). Thus, based on the petition before us, we lack jurisdiction to is sue a writ of injunction in this proceeding under the election code. To the extent relators seek a wr it of mandamus against respondents under § 273.061 of the election code , we lack jurisdiction. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(b). Relators seek mandamus relief against four Ellis County–4– commissioners, an Ellis County judge, a nd the Ellis County Clerk (all elected officials) relating to elections to be held in Ellis County. Ellis County is not within in our district. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 22.201(f), (k), 22.221(b); cf. Leslie v. State , No. 03-22-00127-CR, 2022 WL 1038324, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 6, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding appe llate court lacked jurisdiction over criminal appeal from county not with in appellate court’s district). We do have authority to “issue a writ of mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce the ju risdiction of the court.” T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(a). And relators do ha ve a pending appeal that was transferred to this Court from the Waco Court of Appeals. See Misc. Docket Order. No. 22-9083, arts. V, VII (Tex. Sept. 27, 2022). But relators’ appeal concerns an Ellis County trial court’s order granting respondents’ plea to the juri sdiction. Relators do not assert that we have jurisdiction to issue a writ of ma ndamus against respondents because the writ is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of this Court in their pending appeal for any reason, and we can ascertain none based on the petition before us. Accordingly, we dismiss relators’ petition for want of jurisdiction.

221113F.P05 /Craig Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE