Laura Pressley v. Gregorio (Greg) Casar
567 S.W.3d 327
Tex.2019Background
- 2014 Austin City Council District 4 election: Gregorio Casar won a runoff; Laura Pressley sought a manual recount of 4,417 ballots, 3,937 of which were from Hart Intercivic eSlate DRE machines producing cast-vote records (CVRs). The manual recount matched the original canvass; Casar led by 1,291 votes.
- Pressley filed an election contest alleging (inter alia) CVRs are not valid “ballot images,” poll watchers were unlawfully prevented from observing recount activities, numerous election irregularities (broken seals, missing/abbreviated zero/tally tapes, open tally computers, corrupted mobile ballot memory cards), and voter disenfranchisement due to polling-location consolidation.
- After discovery, Casar obtained traditional and no-evidence summary judgment and moved for Chapter 10 sanctions. The trial court granted summary judgment and awarded sanctions: $40,000 against Pressley, $50,000 against her attorney Rogers, plus costs and contingent appellate fees.
- The court of appeals affirmed. Casar was later reelected and completed the contested term before the Texas Supreme Court review; Pressley and Rogers appealed to the Texas Supreme Court challenging both the dismissal and the sanctions.
- The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the contest was moot because the term expired and whether the sanctions were an abuse of discretion under Chapter 10.
Issues
| Issue | Pressley/Plaintiff's Argument | Casar/Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of election contest | Not moot under capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review because 2-year terms prevent full litigation and issues are recurring | Moot: term expired; no effective remedy and Pressley cannot show the two exceptions to avoid mootness | Contest is moot; Pressley failed to show the exception applies; appeal dismissed as moot |
| Validity of CVRs as ballot images | CVRs do not satisfy Constitution’s ticket-numbering or Election Code ballot/image requirements | Secretary of State (and Casar) may treat CVRs as ballot images; DRE/ CVR use was certified and lawful | Court did not reach merits due to mootness of contest; lower courts had held CVRs permissible but Supreme Court dismissed contest as moot |
| Sanctions under Chapter 10 for alleged frivolous claims | Claims had factual and legal bases (expert report, poll-watcher affidavits, audit logs, corrupted memory-card evidence); presumption of good faith not overcome | Pressley’s claims were speculative, baseless, and properly sanctionable to deter frivolous election suits | Trial court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions: many challenged claims had some factual/legal support and were not frivolous; sanctions vacated |
| Specific claims re: poll-watcher rights and criminal violations | Poll watchers were prevented from observing activities arguably "in connection with the recount," supporting statutory and misdemeanor claims | Secretary of State disagreed; county procedures lawful; no crime established | Claims were non-frivolous because statutory text plausibly covers the activities; sanctioning these claims was an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) (describing Secretary of State certification of voting systems)
- General Land Office v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1990) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness)
- Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (requirements for capable-of-repetition exception)
- Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (mootness: action cannot affect parties’ rights)
- Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (standard for Chapter 10 sanctions review)
- Nath v. Tex. Children’s Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (scope of Chapter 10 sanctionable conduct)
- Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (appellate review limits; trial court has no discretion in deciding what the law is)