Background
Bob Willoughby ran for the Fort Worth City Council’s District 5 seat in the May 3, 2025 election and lost. He then filed what appeared to be an election contest against the City of Fort Worth, alleging in a one-page petition that “irregular numbers” indicated fraud, questioning the number of votes cast, and comparing his results with those from prior elections.
The city moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which permits dismissal of a cause of action having no basis in law or fact. The trial court granted the motion. Although Willoughby’s 57-word appellate brief omitted nearly every component required by the appellate rules, the court declined to resolve the appeal solely through briefing waiver and instead addressed what it understood to be the merits.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed. Reviewing the Rule 91a ruling de novo, the court held that Willoughby failed to plead facts supporting a viable election contest. His petition did not allege facts showing that illegal votes were counted or that an election official prevented eligible voters from voting, failed to count legal votes, committed fraud or other illegal conduct, or made a mistake. Even if his conclusory allegations permitted an inference of election misconduct, he alleged no facts connecting the city to it.
The court also held that the action lacked a legal basis because Willoughby sued the wrong defendant. Under Texas Election Code Section 232.003(a)(1), the proper contestee in this city-council election challenge was the opposing candidate officially declared elected, not the City of Fort Worth. Because the allegations were insufficient and the governing statute did not authorize relief against the city, the trial court properly dismissed the case.
Key Takeaways
- An election contestant must plead facts supporting a statutory ground for challenging the result; suspicion, unexplained numbers, and comparisons with prior elections are insufficient.
- In a city-council election contest, the opposing candidate declared elected is generally the proper defendant, not the city.
- A Rule 91a motion may dispose of an election challenge when the pleaded facts do not establish a viable claim or entitlement to relief against the named defendant.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Texas election contests are governed by specific statutory requirements concerning both the alleged misconduct and the party that must be sued. A disappointed candidate cannot survive dismissal by alleging irregularities in general terms without factual allegations tied to a recognized statutory ground.
The opinion also illustrates that an appellate court may attempt to reach the merits despite severely deficient briefing, but doing so does not relieve a litigant of the obligation to plead a legally viable claim in the trial court.