A civil lawsuit contesting a 66-vote Democratic primary in rural South Texas has uncovered a striking pattern, nearly 90 voters were assisted by just three county employees, raising hard questions about how the state's disability-voting safeguards are being used.
Martha Morales, a Zapata County school board member, lost the March 3 primary for county judge to incumbent Joe Rathmell by 66 votes out of 4,517 cast. She filed a civil election contest alleging fraud involving assisted voters, duplicate ballots, a broken chain of custody, voter registration irregularities, and paid vote harvesting. The case is ongoing, and no court has yet ruled on the merits of her claims.
But the numbers she is pointing to deserve scrutiny. Of those 4,517 ballots, 358, roughly 8 percent, came from voters who claimed they needed physical assistance to cast a ballot. Under Texas law, a voter qualifies for such help only "by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write." No proof of disability is required. The voter simply says the word, an assistant is sworn in, and the process moves forward.
That gap between the honor system and the oath is at the center of this fight.
A review of Texas Secretary of State data, first reported by The Center Square, found that of the 358 assisted voters, 158 appear to have been assisted by just 10 people. The majority of those, nearly 90, were assisted by three county government employees: Martha Garcia, who works for Justice of the Peace Olga Bruni; Laura Garza, who works for Rathmell himself; and Norma Garcia, an employee of the county sheriff.
Martha Garcia alone appears to have assisted more than 40 voters. None of the three responded to requests for comment.
The concentration is striking in a county where the entire election turned on 66 votes. If even a fraction of those assisted ballots were cast by voters who did not actually qualify for help, or were steered by their assistants, the outcome could have been different. That is the core of Morales' argument.
Secretary of State records show another layer of irregularity. Priscilla Garza, the daughter of Justice of the Peace Olga Bruni, is listed as a voter who received assistance from Martha Garcia. She is also listed as a person who then assisted eight other voters, all of whom claimed to be disabled.
Bruni took to Facebook to push back on investigators who came to her door asking whether her daughter actually needed help voting. She wrote that her daughter "has been using eyeglasses since she was a little girl, don't you think maybe she lost contact lenses." When a reporter asked whether she was suggesting that wearing eyeglasses qualifies someone as disabled, and whether her employee Martha Garcia took paid time off to assist voters, Bruni reversed course.
"The election trial has not concluded and on the advice of my attorney I cannot comment."
The question of whether Garcia assisted voters on county time went unanswered.
Morales' lawsuit includes a signed affidavit from Roman Guerrero Vargas, who was sworn in as a voter assistant. Vargas alleges that Laura Garza, the county employee who works for Rathmell, contacted him via Facebook Messenger on March 24, 2025, asking him to bring voters to the polls for Rathmell's campaign.
In the affidavit, Vargas stated plainly what he says happened next:
"At that time, I was informed that I would be paid for my work and was instructed to contact her again when the election period approached."
"When the election period began, I followed up as instructed and assisted in bringing in voters. I was instructed that I needed to tell or encourage voters to vote for Joe Rathmell."
Vargas says he received a $500 check signed by Gina Rathmell, the incumbent's wife, and was promised $5,000 total upon completion of the campaign, money he says he never received. The affidavit includes a copy of the check.
Secretary of State data adds another wrinkle: Vargas appears to have been sworn in under two different names, Roman Vargas and Roman Guerrero. Zapata County Clerk Mary Jayne Bonoan, whose office records sworn assister forms, did not respond to questions about the discrepancy.
Bonoan posted a public defense of her office on Facebook, insisting that "there were no missing ballots. The ballots have always been secure and remain secure. Every procedure carried out by my office was done pursuant to Texas Election Code." She added that her staff "performed our duties accurately, lawfully, and with integrity" and that "the numbers have never changed and neither has the truth."
Rathmell, for his part, denied "generally every allegation contained in Contestee's original petition" in his initial legal response. He did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Center Square.
Morales has asked both the Republican Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Attorney General for help. Neither office's response is publicly known. Alicia Pierce, the Secretary of State's press contact, did not respond to requests for comment about what standards exist to ensure non-disabled voters are not using the assisted-voter process, or what safeguards prevent someone who receives assistance from immediately turning around and assisting others.
Under Texas election law, voters requesting assistance do not have to prove they are disabled. They state their need, choose an assistant, and the assistant takes an oath. That oath, sworn under penalty of perjury, requires the assistant to affirm that "the voter I am assisting represents to me they are eligible to receive assistance," that the assistant "will not suggest, by word, sign, or gesture, how the voter should vote," and that the assistant "did not pressure or coerce the voter into choosing me to provide assistance." The form is then recorded by the county clerk and the Secretary of State.
Texas law also bars a voter from being assisted by their employer, their employer's agent, or an officer or agent of their union. Whether county employees assisting dozens of voters in a race involving their own boss raises questions under that provision is not addressed in the current reporting.
Chad Ennis, vice president of the Honest Elections Project and a former director of the Texas Secretary of State's Forensic Audit Division, spoke broadly about the vulnerabilities in the assisted-voter system without addressing the Zapata County case directly.
"Assistance fraud and ballot trafficking are certainly problems that everyone should be able to agree can lead to taking advantage of voters and fraud."
Ennis noted that federal law entitles voters to the assistant of their choice, which limits how much any state can restrict the practice. He called Texas' approach, logging the identity of every assistant, a best practice, because "without logging of assistants, it is virtually impossible for law enforcement to track down perpetrators."
He also pointed to a broader contrast. Texas, he said, "has some of the strongest laws against paid ballot harvesting in the nation," while states like California "do not ban ballot trafficking at all." His recommendation was direct: "Law enforcement should be diligent in enforcing these laws in states that have them and legislators should pass ballot harvesting bans in states that do not. No one who is not an election official should be able to handle hundreds of ballots."
Morales faces an August 17 deadline to be added to the November 3 ballot. If the civil case is not resolved by then, or if she cannot secure a place on the general election ballot, the practical effect of any favorable ruling shrinks considerably.
The case remains unresolved. Rathmell has denied everything. Bonoan says the numbers never changed. Bruni won't talk. The Secretary of State's office hasn't responded. And the three county employees who assisted nearly 90 voters in a 66-vote race have said nothing at all.
Election integrity does not mean much if the only safeguard is an oath nobody checks and a paper trail nobody follows.
