Originally published October 26, 2026. Time-sensitive figures and conditions reflect the original reporting time.

Kellie Chewning has electronically submitted an expedited mandamus application in the Granbury recall case, asking the court to act before the November 3 election.

The Recall Line: Chewning seeks expedited order

GRANBURY — Kellie Chewning, the recall petition volunteer who intervened last week in the city officials’ lawsuit over Granbury’s recall petitions, is asking the court to act before the November 3 city election and order City Council to call recall elections.

Her “Application for an Expedited Writ of Mandamus” was submitted electronically Monday at 11:06 a.m., according to the e-filing service notice, in Cause No. C2026539 in the 355th Judicial District Court. She represents herself. Hood County Express has not confirmed that the clerk has accepted the filing.

No court has ruled on the application. Hood County Express has seen no hearing setting and no response from the officials or the city.

Mayor Jim Jarratt, Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Wadley and Council Member Gary “Skip” Overdier sued the city October 6 to invalidate the recall petitions against them, alleging fraud, forgery and other defects. Those are the officials’ allegations; no court has made findings.

What she asks

Her filing asks the court, before the November 3 election, to issue a writ “commanding the City Council of Granbury to convene and order the certified recall elections to proceed on the next uniform election date.”

A writ of mandamus directs a government official or body to carry out a legal duty. The officials’ lawsuit says the next uniform election date is May 1, 2027.

Her central allegation

Overdier, whose current term ends in November, is on the November 3 ballot for Place 4 against Janet Logsdon, according to the city election page. Early voting runs through October 30.

Chewning calls the situation “the November mootness maneuver.” She alleges that plaintiffs and city administration are “deliberately freezing these proceedings” so that the November 3 election makes the recall against Overdier “procedurally moot,” permitting him to “bypass voter accountability.”

She further alleges that the parties are using “this litigation freeze to shield his allies, Plaintiffs Jarratt and Wadley, from a hearing on their certified petitions.” Her title calls this “intentional evasion of the recall calendar.”

These are Chewning’s allegations in a filing she authored and signed. The pages reviewed by Hood County Express attach no supporting exhibits, and no court has tested the allegations.

Her other arguments: certification

Both her filing and the officials’ lawsuit say the city secretary certified the petitions September 8. Chewning argues that certification made ordering the elections a “ministerial duty” under Section 4.08 of the City Charter, and that the council has no authority to refuse merely because officials sued.

Section 4.08 provides that when a recalled official does not resign, the council has a duty to order a recall election on the earliest date state law permits.

Her other arguments: signature threshold

The charter sets the recall threshold at 15% of voters registered at the last general city election, or 200 voters, whichever is greater.

Chewning says that after excluding voters marked “S” for suspense, as Texas Election Code Section 277.0024 requires, the threshold is exactly 1,292 valid signatures, which she says the petitions “comfortably clear.”

The officials’ lawsuit puts the threshold at 1,370, or 15% of 9,133 registered voters, and says the city secretary certified all five petitions as meeting it.

Chewning acknowledges her earlier filings misstated the percentage as 10% and calls it a typographical error. The new filing does not show how she calculated 1,292.

Her other arguments: hearings

Chewning alleges that officials’ challenges were “desk-delivered behind closed doors on September 8th without public notation,” and that the September 28 hearings occurred 20 days later, beyond a 15-day limit she attributes to Charter Section 4.09.

The charter’s hearing rule is actually in Section 4.08. Section 4.09 specifies recall-ballot wording. Section 4.08 requires a hearing between five and 15 days after council receives an official’s written request.

The officials’ lawsuit says they requested hearings September 15, 13 days before the hearings.

What happens next

The service notice indicates the application was sent through eFileTexas to the city’s lawyers, plaintiffs’ attorney Andy Taylor, and others.

Earlier Monday, the city filed its answer to the officials’ lawsuit asking the court to deny the officials’ relief and dismiss the case with prejudice.

As of Monday afternoon, Hood County Express had seen no ruling, hearing setting or response from the city or officials on Chewning’s application.

Hood County. Our Home. Our News.