What happened
Council members were split during a Jan. 28 meeting, which led to Mayor Pro Tem John Kirkland breaking the tie. During the meeting, Attorney Stanley Springerly told council members that if they accepted the amendment, the state would likely sue the city as state law supersedes local law—adding that it could cost taxpayers around $400,000.
What they're saying
Kirkland, along with council members Cynthia Meyer and Kevin Plunkett, opposed the amendment after hearing from Springerly.
"Hundreds of thousands of dollars is a lot of taxpayer money to spend, especially when it would still not be enforceable according to state law," Kirkland told Community Impact.
Cheryl Lee and Kerry Fossler disagreed with their fellow council members.
“I would like M to be included in the approval of all charter amendments because that’s what the voters wanted,” Lee said during the meeting. “Understanding what the law is, I understand that as well. But, if the law provides an opportunity or way for residents to petition for something and they follow that process and petition for it and the end result is what it is, I’m going to have to stick with the voters on this one.”
Some context
In January 2024, Attorney General Ken Paxton launched lawsuits against cities that passed similar measures, according to previous reporting by Community Impact. Since then, judges have dismissed several of the lawsuits; however, Paxton is currently appealing the decisions.
Per Texas Local Government Code, municipalities cannot create rules that are against state laws.
“This unconstitutional action by municipalities demonstrates why Texas must have a law to ‘follow the law,’” Paxton said in a news release. “It’s quite simple: the legislature passes every law after a full debate on the issues, and we don’t allow cities the ability to create anarchy by picking and choosing the laws they enforce.”
How we got here
Called the Bastrop Freedom Act, the proposed amendment to the Bastrop Home Rule Charter directed police to deprioritize arrests and citations for misdemeanor marijuana possession offenses, except in cases involving violent crime and major drug investigations.
The timeline
