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, 

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. 

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. 

5:20-cv-00438

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 18
2

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 Kingdom2 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. 

1 https://ethics.harvard.edu/when-can-we-go-out 2 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 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 18
3

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.

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 18
4

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. 

3 https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections 4 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

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 18
5

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 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf 7 Id.

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 5 of 18
6

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. 

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

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 6 of 18
7

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.

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 7 of 18
8

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

9 Exhibit A – Intervention of State of Texas 10 Exhibit B - ELECTION ADVISORY N0. 2020-14 11 Id. at p. 7.

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 8 of 18
9

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.

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 9 of 18
10

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 squad12 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 

12 https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-elections-chief-launches-effort-against-mailvoting-fraud/uKcFoPbbLnFC0A4nXihaLI/

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 10 of 18
11

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 inCase 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 11 of 18
12

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

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 12 of 18
13

CLAIMS

Count 1

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

62. Plaintiffs reallege the facts set forth above.

63. These Election Conditions13 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 13 of 18
14

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 

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 14 of 18
15

(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. 

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 15 of 18
16

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 

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 16 of 18
17

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.

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 17 of 18
18

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

Case 5:20-cv-00438 Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 18 of 18