Subscribe to The Brief, a daily newsletter from The Texas Tribune that keeps you informed about the most important news in Texas.
Automated audio recordings are provided for accessibility. The story has been written and edited by humans. We welcome your feedback on our AI policy.
This week’s court hearing in Austin may provide insights into the ongoing lawsuit that seeks to block Texas’ $3 billion dementia research fund. The state officials who advocated for this initiative, along with the voters who supported it by a significant margin, might not have much to worry about.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, state District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble engaged in a 21-minute discussion with one of the plaintiffs—Shannon Huggins, who was representing herself without legal counsel. The judge pointed out that Huggins had failed to take an essential step in the legal process: properly notifying the individuals she was suing.
Judge Gamble informed Huggins that there would be no temporary injunction hearing that day because she and her fellow plaintiffs, Lars Kuslich and Jose Silvester, did not appropriately serve their lawsuit, filed on November 13, to Governor Greg Abbott and Texas Comptroller Kelly Hancock.
While the case remains active and the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, established by one of the 17 constitutional amendments approved by voters on November 4, is still prevented from implementation, this initial court appearance highlighted a concern expressed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick regarding “frivolous” challenges to constitutional amendments.
The Texas Legislature has recognized the rising issue of such challenges. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a comprehensive judicial bill aimed at preventing lawsuits from obstructing constitutional amendments like Proposition 14 of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute (DPRIT), which received the approval of 2 million Texas voters.
However, House Bill 16, which contains these protective measures, only went into effect on Thursday—too late to prevent the recent lawsuit from stopping DPRIT.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit centers on their claim that the voting machines used in 251 out of 254 Texas counties were not adequately tested for accuracy during the November 4 election, which they argue invalidates the ballots counted on these machines, and they are seeking a new election. These allegations have been dismissed as unfounded, with the Secretary of State’s office confirming that the machines were correctly certified.
Legal analysts and legislators contend that the plaintiffs’ concerns about faulty voting machines are not the primary issue. Many of these plaintiffs are conservative citizens opposed to increased government spending, and their real aim appears to be blocking costly legislation like DPRIT, rather than contesting the other 16 lower-cost constitutional amendments that passed this year. DPRIT is initially set to provide $3 billion in funding for research, followed by up to $300 million annually.
This legal strategy has been employed in the past to obstruct all constitutional amendments, particularly those involving significant state expenditures. In previous instances, once lawsuits were filed, constitutional amendments were allowed to take effect because state attorneys demonstrated that the plaintiffs had not properly served the Secretary of State, enabling Abbott to certify the results and allowing the measures to proceed.
In the ongoing lawsuit against DPRIT, it remains uncertain whether the plaintiffs’ procedural missteps observed during Tuesday’s hearing will lead to a similar resolution as seen in the past cases. Abbott’s office has refrained from commenting, stating only that the governor encouraged Texans to vote in favor of all constitutional amendments. The Texas Attorney General’s office has not provided feedback on the DPRIT lawsuit or the next steps.
Supporters of DPRIT fear that it might face a fate similar to a constitutional amendment from 2021, proposed by Sen. Robert Nichols, which aimed to allow counties to issue additional bonds. That amendment has yet to take effect due to an ongoing lawsuit.
“It’s alarming that the court can nullify a constitutional amendment and override the will of the people and the two-thirds majority of each legislative body,” Nichols remarked.
The restrictive nature of Texas’ constitution has imposed strict limits on state government, necessitating frequent statewide elections to amend it. However, these elections have also led to an increase in legal challenges, which have delayed the implementation of voter-approved initiatives for extended periods.
Nichols’ 2021 proposal aimed to empower counties to create special taxing authorities for infrastructure improvements, receiving support from 63% of voters. Plaintiffs contested the amendment’s language, labeling it vague, and won a ruling in their favor. Nevertheless, the amendment remains unresolved as the state has not indicated whether it plans to appeal, according to Nichols and the plaintiffs’ attorney, Tony McDonald.
“They effectively killed it at the district court,” Nichols stated. “They should not be allowed to stall it indefinitely.”
Challenges concerning voting machines have become a focal point for citizen-led legal actions disputing election results. However, such challenges have thus far proven unsuccessful.
Dave Becker, a former voting rights attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, asserts there is nothing inherently wrong with the voting machines used in Texas for ballot tabulation.
“I’m not sure what they’re referring to regarding certification,” Becker, now leading the Center for Election Innovation & Research in Washington, commented. “Federal certification is not mandatory.”
Each state is responsible for certifying its election equipment, while the federal Election Assistance Commission provides optional guidelines that states may adopt for certification. These guidelines encompass aspects such as security, accuracy, and usability. Becker emphasized that Texas employs some federal guidelines alongside its state-level certification processes.
“Secretary [of State] Nelson is competent, and her staff is knowledgeable,” Becker affirmed.
If the plaintiffs genuinely prioritize election integrity, Becker suggests a straightforward alternative: they should request a count of the paper ballots fed into the machines.
“With a 2-1 margin, you wouldn’t need to review many paper ballots to verify the results,” he noted. “The solution shouldn’t be to demand a redo of the election. Why aren’t they asking for a remedy to recount all the paper ballots?”
As for the next steps, on November 19, just six days after the DPRIT lawsuit was filed, Abbott declared the results of the election for Proposition 14 final, although he stated that his certification cannot be enforced until the lawsuit is resolved.
Outside the courtroom, Huggins was hesitant to answer questions about the motivations behind the challenge and declined to elaborate on her arguments regarding voting machines.
Huggins did clarify that she holds “no opposition” to dementia research and chose to focus on this specific initiative due to the substantial amount of taxpayer funds involved—an initial $3 billion from state revenues—to streamline their challenge.
During Tuesday’s hearing, a state attorney representing Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson, the only party that had been properly notified, appeared ready to argue for the validity of the election results that would allow DPRIT to access funding for research. However, Judge Gamble instructed the plaintiffs to ensure all defendants, including Abbott and Hancock, were properly served before setting a future court date.
As of Thursday, a new date for the case had not yet been established.
Discover more about The Texas Tribune’s policies, including our collaboration with The Trust Project to enhance transparency in journalism.
You have read articles this month and have unlimited access to more as we do not operate behind a paywall.
Texans deserve the truth. Help us continue to report it.
Independent journalism in Texas relies on your support. The Texas Tribune delivers fact-based news for Texans, by Texans—and our community of members, the readers who contribute, makes this possible. Join us in providing in-depth news and information. Will you consider supporting our nonprofit newsroom with a donation of any amount?
Support Independent Texas News. Become a member today. Your support is essential for independent reporting in Texas. The Texas Tribune delivers fact-based journalism for Texans, by Texans—and our community of members makes our work possible. Will you consider supporting us with a donation of any amount?
$18 $20 $25 Other Donate Now
You have read articles this month and have unlimited access to more as we do not operate behind a paywall.
Texans deserve the truth. Help us continue to report it.
Independent journalism in Texas relies on your support. The Texas Tribune delivers fact-based news for Texans, by Texans—and our community of members, the readers who contribute, makes this possible. Join us in providing in-depth news and information. Will you consider supporting our nonprofit newsroom with a donation of any amount?
Support Independent Texas News. Become a member today. Your support is essential for independent reporting in Texas. The Texas Tribune delivers fact-based journalism for Texans, by Texans—and our community of members makes our work possible. Will you consider supporting us with a donation of any amount?
$18 $20 $25 Other Donate Now
Tags: Greg Abbott, state agencies, Texas Legislature Terri Langford Health and Human Services Reporter terri.langford@texastribune.org
Terri Langford is a seasoned journalist with a background in health services reporting, currently based in Austin. She has previously worked with various media outlets, including the Florida Times Union, The Associated Press, and The Dallas Morning News.
