Judge dismisses Frio defamation suit
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
Vote harvesting defendants allege malicious smear campaign
A bid by five local defendants in an ongoing vote harvesting case to declare it as based on false accusations failed in district court last week.
District Judge Jennifer Dillingham dismissed a high-profile lawsuit filed by five Frio County officials and residents, ruling in favor of defendants Mary Moore and Margie Gallardo under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).
The decision, handed down Friday, May 1, effectively ends a legal challenge brought by Rochelle Camacho, Ramiro Trevino, Racheal Garza, Adriann Ramirez and Rosa Galvan Rodriguez.
The plaintiffs now face joint liability for the defendants’ attorney fees, court costs, and legal sanctions.
Attorney Domingo Garcia filed the lawsuit on behalf of the five in February, alleging malicious prosecution and defamation in a Frio County election case, claiming they are victims of a smear campaign fueled by fabricated evidence and what he described as an unconstitutionally vague state statute.
Garcia, who is the immediate past national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and counsel for the five, filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages and accountability for what he describes as a politically motivated campaign of false accusation tied to the 2022 election cycle.
Camacho, Trevino, Garza, Ramirez and Rodriguez were among those implicated and indicted last year in a case involving election fraud and are accused of having played roles in harvesting votes, including an alleged targeting of elderly voters with mail-in ballots.
Camacho was elected Frio County judge, prevailing over Moore in 2022, and took office on January 1, 2023. She was prevented by state judicial authorities in 2025 from completing her first term in office pending the outcome of the case. While she remains the titleholder and has filed for election to a second term, she cannot officiate or preside over the county commissioners’ court.
Camacho and four of her co-defendants in the vote harvesting case returned a volley against their accusers this year.
According to the petition filed in district court, the lawsuit by the five alleges Moore and Gallardo knowingly made false accusations of election-related wrongdoing following the 2022 contested Democratic Party primary runoff for county judge.
“This case is about protecting the integrity of our democracy from weaponized accusations,” Garcia said. “You cannot lose an election, manufacture claims of fraud without evidence, and then use the machinery of government to punish your opponents. This is about clearing the names of good people who served their community and were subjected to public ridicule and criminal allegations based on falsehoods.”
The lawsuit alleged defamation, reputational damage, emotional distress, and economic losses, including termination or forced resignation from employment.
Moore and Gallardo sought a dismissal under the TCPA statute. The law is designed to protect citizens from meritless lawsuits intended to suppress their right to report suspected wrongdoing or speak on matters of public concern.
All parties appeared in front of Dillingham on Monday, April 27, to hear the motion to dismiss the case.
Dillingham determined the plaintiffs had failed to establish “clear and specific evidence” required to sustain their claims.
According to correspondence from Mark Anthony Sanchez, attorney for Moore and Gallardo, the plaintiffs submitted only two pieces of evidence – Camacho’s sworn verification and an email chain.
Sanchez argued the sworn verification “consists of the same broad, generalized, and conclusory assertions contained in the original and amended petitions that merely track plaintiffs’ legal theories, rather than providing clear and specific evidence of each essential element of their claims.”
Sanchez also raised questions regarding the email chain, saying “it constitutes classic hearsay.”
“Moreover, the document, on its face, raises serious questions regarding authenticity and reliability, including indications that it may have been altered, manipulated, or otherwise meddled with,” Sanchez wrote in his correspondence.
Following the ruling, Sanchez praised the court’s application of the TCPA, saying the statute worked exactly as intended to prevent the courtroom from being used as a tool for retaliation.
“This ruling reflects a textbook and faithful application of the TCPA,” Sanchez said. “The statute exists to stop lawsuits that attempt to punish citizens for speaking on matters of public concern or for reporting suspected wrongdoing. That is precisely what Judge Dillingham recognized and acted upon here.
“This decision sends a clear message,” Sanchez said. “The courtroom cannot be used as a tool to intimidate witnesses, chill speech, or retaliate against courageous individuals who step forward and report corruption.”
Under the judgement, the five plaintiffs are now responsible for the defendants’ legal expenses.
Related Posts
Moore meth: Pair face felony drug charges
