MARCUS WOOD and JERRY L. CHRISTIAN, SR., Contestants and Plaintiffs, A be) vs. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS“ DEBORAH WATKINS, City Secretary, City of Dallas, Texas, Dallas City Council Members, TOM LEPPERT, DELIA JASSO, PAULINE MEDRANO, DAVID A, NEUMANN, DWAINE R. CARAWAY, VONCIEL JONES HILL, STEVE SALAZAR, CAROLYN R. DAVIS, TENNELL ATKINS, SHEFFIE KADANE, JERRY R, ALLEN, LINDA KOOP, RON NATINSKY, ANN MARGOLIN and ANGELA HUNT, (WU Un Ur Len Un Un tan tan CED aD aR LR LR UN in etn ten etn tn tn ea 298! Nopiciat DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION IN ELECTION CONTEST Contestees and Defendants. ‘TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiffs and Contestants, Marcus Wood and Jerry L. Christian, Sr. (“Plaintiffs”), hereby bring this election contest seeking to void the election held on November 2, 2010, on Proposition 1, which purported to legalize the sale of beer and wine for off- premise consumption in the entire City of Dallas. Plaintiffs complain of Deborah Watkins, in her capacity as City Secretary, City of Dallas, Texas, and Tom Leppert, in his capacity as Mayor and City Councilman of the city of Dallas, and Delia Jasso, Pauline Medrano, David A. Neumann, Dwaine R. Caraway, Vonciel Jones Hill, Steve PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION IN ELECTION CONTEST. Page-1Salazar, Carolyn R. Davis, Tennell Atkins, Sheffie Kadane, Jerry R. Allen, Linda Koop, Ron Natinsky, Ann Margolin and Angela Hunt, in their capacity as members of the City Council of the City of Dallas (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”), and would respectfully show the Court as follows: L DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Plaintiff intends that discovery be conducted under Level 3. nL PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Marcus Wood, is a resident of Dallas, ‘Texas and is a registered and qualified voter in Dallas, Texas. Wood resides at 5335 Ridgelawn Drive, Dallas, Texas 75214, Plaintiff, Jerry L. Christian, Sr., is a resident of Dallas, Texas and is a registered and qualified voter in Dallas, Texas. Christian resides at 8112 Fox Creek Trail, Dallas, Texas 75249, Plaintiffs have standing to bring this election contest as contestants because they are and were at the time of the contested election qualified voters of the territory covered by the election. 3. Defendant, Deborah Watkins, is the City Secretary, City of Dallas, Texas and may be served with process by serving her at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever she may be found. Defendant Watkins was and is the City Secretary of the City of Dallas at the time of the contested election and was responsible for certifying to the Dallas City Council the number of qualified voters signing the petition for the contested election. TON4, Defendant, Tom Leppert, is the Mayor and a City Council Member of the City of Dallas and may be served with process by serving him at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever he may be found. Defendant Leppert is now and was at the time of the contested election the Mayor of the City of Dallas and the presiding officer of the final canvassing authority for the contested election, the presiding officer of the authority that ordered the contested election and was part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. 5, Defendant, Delia Jasso, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving her at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever she may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. 6. Defendant, Pauline Medrano, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving her at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever she may be found, Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election, 7. Defendant, David A. Neumann, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving him at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever he may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION IN ELECTION CONTEST Page -38 Defendant, Dwaine R. Caraway, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving her at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever he may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. 9, Defendant, Vonciel Jones Hill, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving him at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever she may be found, Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. 10. Defendant, Steve Salazar, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving him at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever he may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election, 11. Defendant, Carolyn R, Davis, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving her at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever she may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. 12, Defendant, Tennell Atkins, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving him at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever he may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. PLAINTIFES’ ORIGINAL PETITION IN ELECTION CONTEST Page-413. Defendant, Sheffie Kadane, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving him at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever she may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. 14. Defendant, Jerry R. Allen, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving him at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever he may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. 15, Defendant, Linda Koop, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving her at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever she may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. 16. Defendant, Ron Natinsky, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving him at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever he may be found, Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. 17. Defendant, Ann Margolin, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving her at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever she may be found, Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION IN ELECTION CONTEST Page-518. Defendant, Angela Hunt, is a Dallas City Council Member and may be served with process by serving her at City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 7-CN, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever she may be found. Defendant is part of the final canvassing authority for the contested election. OL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to Section 221.002 of the Texas Election Code because this lawsuit involves an election contest. Venue is proper in Dallas County pursuant to Section 233.005(2) of the Texas Election Code and pursuant to Section 15.016 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code since the contested election was less than statewide and covered territory within Dallas County. Iv. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20. On May 20, 2010, a “Petition for Local Option Election to Legalize” (the “Petition”) was filed with the City Secretary. The Petition covered all parts of the City of Dallas (the “City”), including areas that previously voted “dry”. The Petition was intended to legalize the sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption in the entire City, The Petition did not distinguish between the City as a whole and those historic political subdivisions that had previously elected dry status, including the former cities and towns of Oak Cliff, Preston Hollow, Kleberg and historic Justice Precinct 7. After the Petition was filed, Plaintiff Wood and Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price, citizens and registered voters in the City, requested the City Secretary to verify RIGINAL PETITION IN BLECTION CON’ PLAINTIFI Pageeach signature on the Petition as permitted by Section 501.031 of the Texas Election Code. Wood and Price expressed concern about the validity of the signatures and the lack of sufficient, qualified Petition signatures in general, including from dry justice precincts, The City Secretary requested and Wood caused payment as assessed by the City for the cost of the City’s signature-by-signature verification of the Petition, as requested. 21, On June 23, 2010, the City Secretary issued a “Memorandum” to the Mayor and Members of the City Council advising that she had “examined” the signatures on the Petition and summarily stating that she found the Petition to contain “sufficient signatures” to qualify as valid, but failing to satisfy statutory requirements to state the number of valid signatures. The City Secretary then submitted the Petition and a Certificate of Sufficiency to the City Council for action. Even though the Memorandum and Certificate of Sufficiency did not certify “the number” of valid signatures as expressly required by statute, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 27932 (the “Ordinance”) ordering a special election to submit Proposition No. 1 to the qualified voters of the City. The Ordinance set forth the boundaries of the election to encompass all parts of the City, but failed to preserve or provide exceptions for political subdivisions that had previously elected “dry” status, as required by State law and the Texas Constitution, 22. On November 2, 2010, Proposition No. 1 - “The legal sale of beer and was submitted to the voters of the City (the wine for off-premise consumption only” PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION IN ELECTION CONTEST. Page-7“Blection”). ‘The Election was held on November 2, 2010. On November 10, 2010, the City Council, acting through a canvassing committee, purported to have canvassed the Election results and entered a resolution and order certifying the results of the Election, which included the approval by a majority vote of Proposition No. 1. v. ELECTION CONTEST 23. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above. 24. All conditions precedent have been performed or have been satisfied. 25, Plaintiffs exercise their right to plead in the alternative as permitted by Tex. R. Civ. P. 48, 26. Plaintiffs hereby bring an election contest to the Election pursuant to Title 14 of the Texas Election Code and Title 6 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, The Election did not comply with the requirements imposed by Texas law and Article 16, Section 20, of the Texas Constitution for a lawful local option election regarding the off- premise sale of beer and wine. Therefore, the Election is void and should be declared void. 27. Without limitation, the outcome of the Election is not the true outcome and is not dispositive or determinative of the local option status of the City for the following reasons: (a) _ Ilegal votes were counted in the Election. Specifically, only the votes of qualified voters residing in historic dry voting units should be counted in determining the outcome of an election in a historic dry voting unit, which purports to reverse the PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION IN ELECTION CONTEST Page -8historic dry status, Thus, the City Secretary improperly canvassed and counted as votes the votes of persons who were not qualified voters residing in historic dry political subdivisions or voting units within the City. (b) The City Secretary and the City Council unlawfully called an election for the City as a whole, without delineating between the City as a whole, and those historic ‘voting units, such as the former cities and towns of Oak Cliff, Preston Hollow, Kleberg, and historic Justice Precinct 7, which previously elected dry status. By doing so, the City failed to count legal votes for an election to change the dry status previously elected by historic dry voting units. Moreover, , the City Secretary and City Council unlawfully disenfranchised and prevented those qualified voters currently residing in historic dry voting units from having only their votes properly counted in determining whether the historically dry status of their former political subdivisions should remain dry. (©) _ The City Secretary called the Election based on an improper Petition. The Petition was improper because it did not contain a sufficient number of signatures of qualified voters and because it did not delineate between historic dry voting units within the City of Dallas that had previously elected dry status. (d) The City Secretary failed to certify to the Dallas City Council “the number” of qualified voters signing the Petition for the Election, as required by Section 501.031(a) of the Texas Election Code. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION IN ELECTION CONTEST Page-9(e) The City Secretary and City Council engaged in illegal conduct or mistake by accepting the Petition, upon information and belief, not verifying each signature on the Petition, not verifying the number of qualified voter signatures in historic dry political subdivisions, calling an election without delineating between the City as a whole and historic dry political subdivisions and allowing voters residing outside of historic dry political subdivisions to vote on wetting up historic dry political subdivisions. Vi. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 1. ajudgment declaring the Election is void; 2. costs of suit; and 3. such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled both at law and in equity. PLAINTIFES’ ORIGINAL PETITION IN ELECTION CONTEST Page- 10Respectfully submitted, eo C. DELA State Bar No. 05646600 DEREK D, ROLLINS State Bar No. 24029803 ANDREW L. SIEGEL State Bar No. 18341825 SHACKELFORD, MELTON & MSKINLEY, LLP 3333 Lee Parkway, Tenth Floor Dallas, Texas 75219 (214) 780-1400 (Ielephone) (214) 780-1401 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS