1

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,

and

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS and TEXAS LEAGUE OF 

UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS,

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

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.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.

5:20-cv-00438-FB

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

FACTS

 

1. Texas has an extensive history of disenfranchising voters.

2. Texas only permits citizens over the age of 65 to vote by mail without excuse in 

violation of the 26th Amendment.

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 18
2

3. In all circumstances, a state limiting vote by mail to citizens based solely on their 

age is violative of the Constitutional guarantee of the 26th Amendment that prohibits age 

discrimination in voting.

4. Even were the age limitation not facially invalid, the factual circumstances in 

Texas, with and without the pandemic, make the age limitation unconstitutional.

5. Furthermore, as applied to these Plaintiffs, the age limitation violates the U.S. 

Constitution.

6. Moreover, the age limitation, coupled with recent and likely to come, enacted and 

enforced state election policies, are designed to and in fact do, benefit white non-Hispanic voters 

and unconstitutionally burdened historical racial minorities.

7. As the state has grown more racially diverse, age based access to vote by mail not 

only has an age based discriminatory intent and effect but because racial minorities are 

disproportionately younger than the aging non-Hispanic white voters, the policy has racially 

discriminatory effect.

8. In the recent elections, the state leadership, including the Defendant Secretary of 

State, was well aware the racially discriminatory impacts of restricting vote by mail to older 

citizens and steadfastly refused to extend voting by mail to all eligible voters regardless of age.

9. Every other U.S. state except for four, facilitated voting by mail for all citizens, 

but Texas refused.

10. 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, 

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 18
3

county and city officials have ordered at times various limitations statewide, the central feature 

of which is to limit contact between persons. 

11. Government ordered “social distancing” has had an effect on citizen behavior.

12. At the beginning of this case, Plaintiffs pointed to an influential report from the 

Imperial College in the United Kingdom1 that, now in hindsight, correctly projected continuous 

waves of COVID-19 infections, including even their rough timing, except that an additional

wave occurred in Texas in the Summer of 2020 not reflected in the projection because the 

authors did not assume the state would try to re-open as fast as it did from shut down orders 

issued at the beginning of the pandemic: 

1 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-CollegeCOVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 3 of 18
4

13. Now, thankfully, vaccines have been developed and are being administered.

14. Despite this, an additional spring wave of infections are occurring including in 

Texas.

15. There are also worrisome signs of developing strains of the coronavirus that may 

evade the developed vaccines.

16. Also, there is hesitancy in a significant portion of the population toward the 

vaccines and it is not at all clear that a large enough portion of the population will be effectively 

vaccinated to stop the pandemic.

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 18
5

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

new infections until there is some measure of “herd immunity”.2

18. Given these conditions, the recent elections for federal, state, county, city and 

other local offices were vastly impacted. 

19. Importantly, voter behavior has changed. 

20. Many voters will continue to avoid large public gatherings like in-person voting 

centers, as a result of these events.

21. Also, unfortunately the public has become politically and racially divided on the 

COVID-19 pandemic.

22. In the recent elections, statutorily authorized poll watchers utilized the 

coronavirus as a weapon, insisting on hovering over election workers and voters without wearing 

a mask, oftentimes in transparent effort to obstruct voting or vote processing.

23. The Secretary of State not only permitted poll watchers to utilize the coronavirus 

pandemic in this manner, but encouraged it.

24. Now, the state is considering additional election statutes that would further

empower poll watchers to disrupt orderly elections and be utilized at polling locations in 

minority neighborhoods to further discourage in person voting.

25. Meanwhile, the disproportionally white non-Hispanic older voters are permitted 

to vote by mail from home and avoid state-empowered and abusive poll watchers.

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

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

2 http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/communicable-diseases/influenza/data-and-statistics/pandemicinfluenza/about-pandemic-phases

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 18
6

27. These very activities have been and still are heavily discouraged by various 

government orders and public experts. 

28. Even were this pandemic to continue to ease, certain populations will feel the 

need and/or be required to continue social distancing. 

29. Allowing, encouraging, and enforcing state law such that disproportionately white 

non-Hispanic voters can vote by mail while younger more diverse Texans have to vote in person 

at polling locations is part and parcel of recent state efforts to unconstitutionally burden voting 

by racial minorities.

30. The state’s efforts to disenfranchise racial minorities has accelerated in the last 

decade.

31. In 2011, the Texas Legislature adopted Redistricting plans, a photo voter 

identification law and statutes criminalizing voter registration processes each of which was found 

to have discriminatory effects and two of which district courts determined were adopted with 

racially discriminatory intent.

32. Various policy and administrative decisions were made by state officers in the

years since which had discriminatory effects.

33. In 2019, the Texas Secretary of State initiated a voter purge program that had the 

effect of removing from the voting rolls approximately 100,000 citizens, many of which had 

been recently naturalized.

34. The voter purge plan was rejected by this Court.

35. State leadership continued to push for the confirmation of that Secretary of State 

despite these events.

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 18
7

36. In the last decade, the state has aggressively prosecuted citizens for voting related 

“crimes” many of which amount to honest mistakes or were the result of poll worker error but 

these prosecutions have disproportionately focused on racial minorities.

37. In 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic set in, the Secretary of State worked 

aggressively to shape the pandemic related election rules to advantage white non-Hispanic

voters.

38. Texas was one of 5 states to resist allowing safe voting by mail.

39. Instead, Texas allowed disproportionately white non-Hispanic older voters to vote 

by mail but restricted the much more racially diverse younger voters to voting in person.

40. Meanwhile, the Texas Secretary of State did not require the wearing of mask in 

polling locations and otherwise failed to take reasonable steps to ensure safe in-person voting.

41. Although the state allowed additional days of early voting, early voting is 

disproportionately utilized by white non-Hispanic voters.

42. Citizens contracted COVID-19 while voting in person while voters granted the 

right to vote at home by mail did not.

43. At least one poll worker perished administering in person voting.

44. The Texas Secretary of State utilized his enforcement authority to prevent larger 

counties with diverse populations from putting into effect common sense election administration 

practices to facilitate voting during a pandemic.

45. The Texas Governor, after voting began and ballots started to be delivered, 

ordered, and the Secretary of State enforced, a policy that large urban and diverse counties could 

operate ballot drop locations only at county permanent offices thereby resulting in large urban 

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 7 of 18
8

and diverse counties having roughly the same number of drop locations as rural, largely white 

non-Hispanic counties.

46. These and other pandemic related policies, were effective at diminishing minority 

voter turnout.

47. This diminishment in minority voter turnout also occurred in areas with higher 

minority populations and recent surges in COVID-19 cases.

48. After the election, Texas challenged the presidential election results nationwide.

49. Texas argued that other states that did not administer their elections in a racially 

discriminatory manner should have their election results disregarded.

50. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas’s effort to interfere with the election 

administration of other U.S. states.

51. Despite having administered its recent election to advantage the votes of white 

non-Hispanic citizens, the Texas Legislature is now holding hearings on large bills including 

many election changes designed to continue to advantage white non-Hispanic voters.

52. There is no evidence of material election fraud in the state but there is real 

evidence that the state’s designed effort to minimize the voting power of racial minorities is 

effective.

53. Texas is poised to undertake even more racially discriminatory election 

administration measures in the Legislative Session about to wrap up in a few weeks.

54. Currently under consideration by the legislature are measures that further 

advantage white non-Hispanic voters, and lever off of the state’s policy to limit no-excuse vote 

by mail to disproportionately white non-Hispanic voters over age 65.

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 18
9

55. One such measure gives further powers to poll watchers that will empower them 

to further disrupt and discourage voting at in-person polling locations in communities with high 

Latino, African-American and/or Asian-American voters.

56. Another measure would require affidavit for persons who assist voters, which 

must be included along with vote by mail carrier envelope.

57. Another measure would require persons under age 65 to provide proof of their 

disability in order to utilize the disability exception to vote by mail.

58. Another measure would prohibit a mail voter from curing a mail ballot that has 

been rejected by the ballot board.

59. Data shows that racial minorities, in particular those with non-Anglo surnames, 

are disproportionately more likely to have their mail ballot rejected and by prohibiting them from 

curing the ballot, the state policy will further exacerbate discrimination.

60. Even though these pieces of legislation have yet to pass, there have been 

numerous departures from normal procedure in their legislative histories including changing the 

rules in the Texas House and Senate to ensure or, at least, aid their passage.

61. The Governor has declared election measures a priority and given them 

emergency status during the Legislative session.

62. Legislative leaders have given every impression that a package of additional 

measures designed to advantage voting for white non-Hispanic voters will be enacted into law.

63. Texas officials make it harder for racial minorities to vote, while making it easier 

for white non-Hispanic voters to cast an effective ballot because of the voter’s race.

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 9 of 18
10

64. Since Reconstruction, Texas has engaged in continuous efforts to advantage 

voting for white non-Hispanic citizens while disadvantaging voting for racial minorities.

65. African-American, Latino and Asian-American Voters are disproportionately 

members of and supporters of the Texas Democratic Party while white non-Hispanic voters are 

disproportionately supportive of Republican Party of Texas. 

66. Voting in Texas is racially polarized with the political majority, white nonHispanic voters, voting for opposite candidates, Republicans, than Latino, Asian-American and 

African-American voters who largely support Democrats.

67. Because state leadership is made of Republican officeholders, adopting racially 

discriminatory election rules advantages their election.

68. The closeness of the 2020 election results drives state legislative action to further 

restrict the right to vote.

69. Texas’s continued effort to preference the disproportionately white non-Hispanic, 

older population with vote by mail and a myriad of other voting advantages violates the U.S. 

Constitution and federal law.

70. Whatever the political and racial majority, the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state 

from advantaging a subset of voters as Texas has done and intends to continue to do.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

71. 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). 

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 10 of 18
11

PARTIES 

Plaintiffs

72. 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. The Texas Democratic Party is made up of members throughout the state, in every 

county, that are eligible voters and that are harmed by the unconstitutional conduct alleged 

herein.

73. Plaintiff Gilberto Hinojosa is Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, Latino

and a registered voter in Texas. 

74. 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. He was 

born in 2000 and is of Italian-American descent. He desires to vote by mail-in ballot and would 

without the state’s age restriction which discriminates against him based on his age.

75. 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 She was 

born in 1960 and is white non-Hispanic. She desires to vote by mail-in ballot and would without 

the state’s age restriction which discriminates against her based on her age.

76. 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. She was born in 1975

and is Latina. She desires to vote by mail-in ballot and would without the state’s age restriction 

which discriminates against her based on her age and her race.

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 11 of 18
12

Defendants

77. 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.

78. 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.

79. 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

CLAIMS

Count 1

Race and Language Minority Discrimination, Section 2, Voting Rights Act

80. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

81. Texas’s age limitation for mail voting, on its own and as combined with the 

election policies enacted and soon to be enacted, as described above, violate Section 2 of the 

Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, because they result 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. 

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

the right to vote on account of race and language minority.

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 12 of 18
13

Count 2

Race Discrimination, 14th Amendment

83. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above. 

84. Texas’s age limitation for mail voting, on its own and as combined with the 

election policies enacted and soon to be enacted, as described above, 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.

Count 3

Race Discrimination, 15th Amendment

85. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

86. Texas’s age limitation for mail voting, on its own and as combined with the 

election policies enacted and soon to be enacted, as described above, 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

Equal Protection, 14th Amendment, Anderson/Burdick

87. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above. 

88. Texas’s age limitation for mail voting, on its own and as combined with the 

election policies enacted and soon to be enacted, as described above, violate the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they mandate

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 13 of 18
14

arbitrary and disparate treatment of voters and deny equal access to the right to vote to eligible 

citizens. 

89. 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. 

90. 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). 

91. 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 

(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. 

92. Indeed, Texas’s age limitation for mail voting, on its own and as combined with 

the election policies enacted and soon to be enacted, as described above, 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. 

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 14 of 18
15

Count 5

Denial of Free Speech, First Amendment applied through the 14th Amendment

93. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

94. 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. 

95. As a restriction on free speech and association, Texas’s age limitation for mail 

voting, on its own and as combined with the election policies enacted and soon to be enacted, as 

described above, violate the guarantee of the First Amendment. 

Count 6

Abridgment of the Right to Vote based on Age, 26th Amendment

96. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above. 

97. Texas’s age limitation for mail voting, on its own and as combined with the 

election policies enacted and soon to be enacted, as described above, amount to abridgment of 

the right to vote based on the age of the voter. 

98. The state law limiting no-excuse mail voting includes a facial age limitation on 

who can vote by mail.

99. This claim is brought as applied and as a facial challenge.

100. Texas’s limitation of vote by mail by age, violates the 26th Amendment to the 

U.S. Constitution. 

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 15 of 18
16

101. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed this 

Court’s Preliminary Injunction based on the 26th Amendment claim, Plaintiffs are entitled to 

review of this claim on the merits, after final trial and full appellate review thereafter.

102. In the event the preliminary injunction rulings on appeal are dispositive of this 

claim, Plaintiffs hereby make this claim which amounts to a nonfrivolous argument for 

extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.

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

age, to their fundamental right to vote. 

104. As applied, the individual plaintiffs, as well as the Plaintiff TDP members, face an 

unconstitutional burden, because of their age, to their fundamental right to vote.

EQUITY

105. 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: 

106. 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 

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. 

107. 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 18
17

Conditions, including enjoining Defendants from conducting any elections utilizing these 

Election Conditions. 

108. 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.

109. 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. 

110. 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.

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

This the 16th day of April, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Chad W. Dunn

Chad W. Dunn

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

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 18
18

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

405 N. Saint Mary’s, Ste. 700

San Antonio, Texas 78205

(210) 892-8543

martin.golando@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on April 16, 2021, the foregoing amended complaint was filed via the 

Court’s ECF/CM system, which will serve a copy on all counsel of record.

/s/Chad W. Dunn

Chad W. Dunn

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 141 Filed 04/16/21 Page 18 of 18