Lamar "Yaka" Jefferson and Jrmar "JJ" Jefferson v. Adam Bazaldua, Carolyn King Arnold, Tennell Atkins, Omar Narvaez, Jamie Resendez, and Eric Johnson
05-23-00938-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 26, 2024Background
- Lamar "Yaka" Jefferson and Jrmar "JJ" Jefferson contested the results of the Dallas municipal election held on May 6, 2023, in which they alleged they were candidates for city council (District 7) and mayor, respectively.
- The City disqualified both Jeffersons: Jrmar for not submitting enough valid signatures and Lamar for not meeting voter registration requirements; neither appeared on the ballot.
- Following the election, the Jeffersons filed a pro se petition, later amended, contesting the election outcomes based on alleged illegal votes, procedural mistakes, and other wrongdoing.
- The prevailing candidates, Adam Bazaldua (District 7) and Eric Johnson (mayor), moved for dismissal, arguing the Jeffersons lacked standing since they were not on the ballot.
- The trial court granted pleas to the jurisdiction and dismissed the Jeffersons’ claims with prejudice; the Jeffersons appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to Bring Election Contest | The Jeffersons claimed standing as "candidates" despite not being on the ballot | Only candidates (i.e., names on the ballot) have standing | Only on-ballot candidates have standing; no standing |
| Removal from Ballot/Disqualification | The Jeffersons argued they were improperly left off the ballot | Issue is now moot after election concluded | Issue moot after election starts; court lacks jurisdiction |
| Merits of the Election Contest | Assertion of fraud, irregularities, and errors in the election | Not addressed, as standing was challenged | Not considered; no standing to bring these claims |
| Lack of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law | Argued entitlement to such findings post-dismissal | Not required for jurisdictional dismissal | Not required; no harm shown; no jury/evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Beasley, 598 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2020) (sets forth de novo review applicable to pleas to the jurisdiction)
- Nichols v. Seei, 97 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (establishes that election contests are strictly statutory and standing is limited)
- Broadway Nat’l Bank v. Yates Energy Corp., 631 S.W.3d 16 (Tex. 2021) (undefined statutory terms are interpreted by their ordinary meaning)
- TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (interpret statutes as a whole, considering legislative intent)
- State v. $1,760.00 in U.S. Currency, 406 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. 2013) (statutory terms should be defined consistently with statute’s context)
- IKB Indus. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1997) (no duty to make findings when case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds)