Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
98691
SUMMARY
The Court lacks jurisdiction over this moot lawsuit by Ruby Faye Woolridge, a self-
described “incumbent candidate” for Texas’ 6th Congressional District Democratic Party
nomination. Suit was filed some 20 days after Ms. Woolridge lost the May run-off by more than
6% of the vote. It raises a challenge to runoff winner Jana Lynne Sanchez’s placement on the
original primary ballot, an election that took place nearly 100 days prior to this suit being filed.
Ms. Sanchez denies any fraud by her campaign. The small group of signatures that raised
suspicions were set aside before ballot petition filing. Those signatures appear to have been
collected by a person later revealed to have been helping the Woolridge Campaign while paid as
a contractor for the Sanchez Campaign and who later openly moved over to the Woolridge camp.
That person since admitted to signing a few names on behalf of voters (potentially a crime and so
reported to appropriate authorities prior to receipt of the lawsuit). As to the mail-in-ballots, those
The Court alternatively is asked to dismiss under the Texas Anti-SLAPP law the suit’s
attack on Ms. Sanchez’s rights to free speech and to participation in the political process,
awarding the Sanchez Campaign attorney fees and costs of court. Ms. Woolridge was warned by
a state Democratic Party official that her claims lacked any merit, but rejects the voters’ decision.
1
1. PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
1.1. Ms. Sanchez requests the Court dismiss this suit in whole or part for lack of jurisdiction.
1.2. While also referencing the runoff election of May 2018 (¶4), much of the lawsuit focuses
on purported irregularities as to Ms. Sanchez’s obtaining a place on the ballot for the
March 2018 primary. Compare ¶¶ 6-7. There was no separate process for Ms. Sanchez to
be placed on the runoff ballot, once she came in second place in the primary.
1.3. A claim is moot when it cannot be tried and a final decree issued in time for it to be
complied with by election officials. Here, a court cannot overturn the results of the March
2018 primary election that occurred prior to the more recent May 2018 runoff.
1.4. Ms. Woolridge won the primary (by around 15 votes) and so lacks standing to argue that
the outcome of it was unfair to her. It is speculative to argue that Ms. Woolridge surely
would have won the runoff if only the candidate had been other than Ms. Sanchez or won
the primary if Ms. Sanchez had not been on that ballot due to an inadequate number of
signatures. For example, Ms. Sanchez could have paid a fee to be on the ballot.
1.5. Any challenge to Ms. Sanchez’s name’s appearing on the primary ballot had to be raised
prior to distribution of those ballots. The constraints on a court’s action are determined by
the election schedule and, based on separation of powers, no court may interfere with an
1.6. The challenge to the political candidates of an office-seeker becomes moot when any right
which may be determined by the court cannot be effectuated in the manner provided by
1.7. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 141.034 bars challenges to compliance with form, content, and
2
2. TEXAS CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION ACT (“ANTI-SLAPP” STATUTE)
2.1. The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.001 et seq.)
protects from lawsuits that would intimidate or silence citizens on issues of public concern.
2.2. Seeking elected office, such as a seat in Congress, is a form of protected free speech. It
takes the First Amendment right to petition the government to its ultimate end: obtaining
a position from which one can vote on the laws as they are made. There are few if any
laws voted on by Congress that are not in some sense a matter of public concern.
2.3. The Act involves the targeted citizen’s filing of a motion seeking expedited dismissal,
demonstrating by a preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not) that the suit
relates to or is in response to the citizen’s exercise of free speech, the right to petition, or
the right to association. The litigant must respond by disproving such rights are at issue or
by “clear and specific evidence” setting out a prima facie case for each element of a claim.
Failing that, the litigant also may have attorney fees, expenses, and costs awarded against
it. A court further may award sanctions against a party bringing an action designed to
repress free-speech rights and such sanctions are being sought against Ms. Woolridge.
2.4. Ms. Sanchez soon will file such a motion for dismissal.
3. MOOTNESS
3.1. As set out above in the discussion of the lack of jurisdiction, Ms. Woolridge’s claims that
Ms. Sanchez improperly was placed on the primary ballot are moot.
3
4. GENERAL DENIAL AND OTHER MATTERS1
4.2. Neither Ms. Sanchez nor her campaign engaged in any fraud or other intentional
4.3. Ms. Woolridge has failed to comply with all conditions precedent to bringing suit.
4.5. Ms. Woolridge may not obtain equitable relief because of one or more of:
Ornelas was working undercover for the Woolridge Campaign while being paid by
4.5.1.1. For example, it appears that Ms. Ornelas, while working for the Sanchez
Ms. Sanchez sent them out to supporters of the Sanchez campaign. It further
appears that Ms. Woolridge opened many of the related campaign update emails.
4.5.1.2. As well, after Ms. Ornelas left the Sanchez Campaign to openly work for
they had given their email solely to the Sanchez Campaign and no others.
1
All claims in this answer are subject to correction as more information becomes available and
are pled in addition and in the alternative to each other.
2
Her name is doubly misspelled in the caption as “Janna Lynn Sanchez.”
4
4.5.1.3. When Ms. Woolridge was asked to investigate the two matters above, she
4.5.1.4. Viewed in the light of the current frivolous lawsuit, Ms. Sanchez also now
wonders whether it was the Woolridge Campaign and/or its supporters behind
an earlier anti-Sanchez letter sent out to many people by U.S. Mail that
4.5.2. Laches—Ms. Woolridge unduly delayed in bringing this suit, only doing so weeks
after losing the runoff election, rather than prior to ballots’ going out for the original
primary election. Also, the Rebeca Ornelas who appears to be a source for information
for Ms. Woolridge’s false claims of fraud seems to have been working for Ms.
Woolridge at least as early as November 2017 (when she appears to have entered Ms.
Woolridge knew or should have known of any concerns Ms. Ornelas had during those
more than six months prior to the present lawsuit. (Based on the limited information
available at this early stage in the proceedings, it appears Ms. Ornelas openly began
5. ADDITIONAL FACTS
5.1. Though not by a large margin, Ms. Woolridge was the lead vote recipient in the primary
5.2. Ms. Sanchez won by more than 6% of the total votes cast (by some 717 ballots) in the
runoff, making it extremely unlikely that any irregularity claimed in the mail-in ballots
5
5.3. As well, Ms. Sanchez’s campaign did not distribute or collect mail-in ballots and so would
not have been in a position to falsely submit them on behalf of other people.
6.1. FOR SUCH REASONS, Ms. Sanchez and her campaign call upon the Court to dismiss
Ms. Woolridge’s frivolous complaint and to award attorney fees, expenses, and costs, as
well as assessing sanctions against Ms. Woolridge for her unfounded claims that serve
only to harass Ms. Sanchez in an effort to punish her for defeating the self-described
“incumbent candidate.”
6.2. Ms. Sanchez further requests Ms. Woolridge be denied relief of any kind and that Ms.
Sanchez be granted such other and further relief in law and equity to which the Court may
Respectfully Submitted,
BY: ________________________________________
David R. Schleicher TX Bar 17753780
david@gov.law
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I certify by signature below that on this JUNE 18, 2018, a true
and correct copy of the foregoing and any attachment was served in accordance with applicable
rules on Ruby Woolridge by way of the e-filing system to her attorney James Polk. The other
parties are being served by certified mail to the address listed in paragraph 2 of Contestant’s
Original Petition.