I didn’t even know there was an appeal. And having read the story and the opinion, there kind of wasn’t, not in any real sense.
The 14th Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that “no evidence” was found to support a Republican-backed challenge of the 2022 district clerk election results.
Chris Daniels was one of 21 Republican candidates who filed election contest lawsuits after the results of the 2022 Harris County midterm elections. Daniels, who ran for Harris County District Clerk against Democratic incumbent Marilyn Burgess, alleged ballot paper shortages at several polling locations constituted “voter suppression,” and asked the court to overturn the results.
Following a November 2023 trial court ruling in favor of Burgess, Daniels’ legal team filed an appeal. Republican chief justice for the 14th Court of Appeals, Tracy Christopher, wrote in an opinion that while some residents may have been prevented from voting, Daniels’ attorneys did not provide sufficient evidence to prove he would have won the election had they been able to cast ballots.
“Daniels bore the burden to produce legally sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer that the mistakes or misconduct of Harris County election officials prevented at least 25,640 eligible Harris County voters from voting on November 8, 2022,” the 14th Court of Appeals’ opinion read. “Because he did not do so, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.”
This lawsuit was filed, along with many others, in January 2023. It was tossed, along with all but one of the others, that November. The margin of victory here was not particularly close; the amount of fraud or error to obviate the result would have to be so massive that basically every race on the ballot would need to be tossed as well. Nobody came close to providing such evidence.
The opinion, written by the Republican Chief Justice with concurrence from a Republican associate justice and a visiting judge whose name I don’t recognize, makes it clear that this whole exercise was a waste of time. District Clerk Burgess, the defendant in the original case, moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff Chris Daniel provided “no evidence that the number of eligible voters who were prevented from voting was at least as large as Burgess’s margin of victory.” Here’s the crux of the ruling:
Daniel has never attempted to quantify the number of eligible Harris County voters he contends were prevented from voting on November 8, 2022. To the contrary, he asserts that he is not required to “quantify an[] impossibility.” He cites no authorities that support his position, but instead states that his appeal requires this Court to answer a question of first impression that no Texas case has previously addressed: “in what way should a Contestant establish that behavior at issue under [Texas Election Code] § 221.003(a)(2) . . . makes the result of the election unknowable?”
But in fact, that question was answered over a hundred years ago.
[…]
Daniel asserts that section 221.003(a)(2) of the Texas Election Code “asks the trial [court] to focus on whether or not the official created an impediment to voting, and not the number of ballots that may be discounted.” But Daniel is mistaken. Section 221.003(a) instructs the tribunal to decide “whether the outcome of the contested election, as shown by the final canvass, is not the true outcome.” TEX. ELEC. CODE § 221.003(a). The actual outcome of the election was that Burgess defeated Daniel by 25,640 votes. To show that this was not the true outcome, Daniel had to offer legally sufficient evidence of one of two things. To have himself declared as the winner of the election, Daniel would have had to show that the election’s true outcome can be ascertained, and that the majority of votes were cast for him. Daniel made no such allegations. Alternatively, to have the election declared void and hold a new election, Daniel had to show that so many eligible voters were prevented from voting that it cannot be determined which candidate received the majority of votes. Thus, even if Daniel had presented legally sufficient evidence that misconduct by election officials prevented 20,000 eligible voters from voting, the outcome of the 2022 race for Harris County District Clerk would still be ascertainable, and Burgess still would have received the majority of votes. That the additional votes may have reduced Burgess’s margin of victory is immaterial.
In his brief, Daniel seems to suggest that he met his burden with other data, such as by showing that voters were prevented from voting at 20% of Harris County polling places on election day, or that “voters were openly turned away at 129 polling locations because of insufficient paper supplies,” or that 37 polling places did not open on time. We do not consider the effect those assertions might have had if they were supported by evidence, because no evidence supports them.
If that wasn’t enough, the opinion notes that Daniel misreads the trial judge’s opinion and cites it as evidence in his favor, when in fact it says the opposite. As the SportsCenter guys might say when showing a highlight of a batter striking out on three pitches: good morning, good afternoon, good night.
One more thing:
While Tuesday’s ruling does mark a favorable end for Harris County elected officials in 20 of the 21 suits filed by Republican challengers, one particularly narrow judicial race was overturned.
Republican Tami Pierce contested the results of the 2022 election for 180th District Court judge, which she lost to DaSean Jones by just 449 votes. Judge David Peeples, who also oversaw Daniels’ case, voided the election in 2024 and ordered a re-do election scheduled for May 5.
Yeah, no. First, the May election is set for May 3, the uniform election date for this May. May 5 is a Monday, and I for one have never heard of an election being held on a Monday, and neither has the Elections Code. I’m sure this is a typo, but this is also why God created copy editors. And as we have discussed, there is no Jones/Pierce election on the May ballot. Jones’ appeal of that ruling put a pause on the redo election, and since the matter is still being considered by the First Court of Appeals, it ain’t happening at this time. Maybe not ever, given where we are in the calendar. Can we get a cleanup on Aisle 3 here?