Texas Supreme Court to decide whether Austin has a charter election this year

The Supreme Court of Texas has accepted a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Save Our Springs Alliance lawsuit against the city of Austin regarding alleged violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act. If the court agrees with the plaintiffs that the city violated the Open Meetings Act in setting a charter election for Nov. 5, the part of the election related to 13 proposed changes to Austin’s charter could be halted. The remainder of the ballot would not be impacted by the lawsuit.

A Travis County judge has already issued a temporary restraining order in the case and set a temporary injunction hearing for Thursday.

As Bill Aleshire, attorney for the SOS Alliance, explained in his request to the Supreme Court, the deadline for setting items on the November ballot is this Friday for Hays and Williamson counties. The deadline for Travis County is Sept. 5. Regardless of who wins the injunction battle in the Travis County District Court, there will be insufficient time for either party to appeal.

Normally, the case would go from the District Court to the Court of Appeals and then on to the Supreme Court. But this is an unusual case, and the Supreme Court has recognized that and requested that the city file a response to the plaintiffs’ petition at 9 a.m. Wednesday. If the Supreme Court issues a ruling before the parties go to the Travis County courthouse for their temporary injunction hearing on Thursday morning, there will be no need for that hearing.

Attorneys for the city did not object to the SOS motion to expedite consideration of the plaintiffs’ emergency petition for the writ of mandamus. Although the city does oppose the writ of mandamus, they need an answer as soon as possible to the question of whether they will be holding a charter election in November.

City Council voted at its Aug. 14 meeting to set the charter election. The matter was also on its July 18 agenda, although the proposed amendments were not listed individually. The plaintiffs say that failing to list the individual proposed changes to the charter did not give the public sufficient notice of what might be discussed or put on the ballot, thus violating the Open Meetings Act.

In addition to the SOS Alliance, the plaintiffs in this case are Bill Bunch, executive director of the alliance, and Joe Riddell, formerly an attorney with the Texas attorney general’s office.

While objecting to the failure to give proper notice about the amendments, the plaintiffs also argue that the public was not given sufficient time to speak on the proposals. Bunch signed up to speak about the proposed amendments at the July 18 meeting. He was given only three minutes to speak on all the charter amendments, but another citizen donated her three minutes to him, giving him a total of six minutes. Bunch protested that those addressing the charter amendments should be given three minutes per item. Mayor Kirk Watson disagreed, and Bunch said he would see him in court. This is the second time in recent months that the environmental organization and Bunch have sued the city over violations of the Open Meetings Act.

When the lawsuit was filed, Bunch released the following statement: “Seeking to hide this basic truth, the Mayor and Council majority called this last minute ‘emergency’ election without the public notice and public participation required by state law. They are hoping uninformed voters overwhelmed by a lengthy ballot loaded with other state, federal, and local elections will simply vote ‘yes’ to major City Charter changes hidden behind vague and friendly-sounding ballot language.”

Aleshire, a former Travis county judge and longtime attorney, noted that if the election goes forward despite violations of the Open Meetings Act then the plaintiffs will have no remedy to the violations.

The city did not respond to a request for comment.

Photo made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.