What happened
District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble issued a temporary injunction against Austin's charter amendment election Aug. 29. Gamble sided with plaintiffs who claimed city officials hadn't given enough public notice when calling this fall's proposition election, in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Her decision led the 13 items to be left off Austin ballots this November.
“I am hoping that the council will finally come to the realization that twice this year, they have been caught by the courts violating the open meetings act ... and reconsider whether they want to continue making decisions this way," Bill Aleshire, attorney for the plaintiffs suing the city, told Community Impact.
In a statement, the city of Austin said, "Due to recent court decisions, the City has decided it is in the best interest of the public that the special election on charter amendments not be included in the upcoming election ... Staff takes full responsibility for any inconsistency with the Texas Open Meetings Act and, as such, staff will ensure that future council action items are posted to provide notice and opportunity for public comment in full compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act."
The outcome this week followed District Court Judge Daniella DeSeta Lyttle's approval of a temporary restraining order over the election one week prior, while the state Supreme Court declined to take up the issue.
How we got here
In mid-August, Austin officials called an election for more than a dozen proposals to revise the city charter.
Some of those items stemmed from an extensive resident-led review of certain charter provisions that started last year, while others were drafted more recently by city staff.
Council officially ordered the election during their Aug. 14 budget adoption meeting. Soon after, the Save Our Springs Alliance, its Executive Director Bill Bunch, and attorney Joe Riddell sued city leaders and alleged the election was called in "blatant violation" of state open meetings laws.
The action followed a separate lawsuit from Bunch earlier this year, in which he successfully argued that City Council members had been violating open meetings law with certain practices at their meetings.
What's next
Gamble's decision came on the brink of the deadline for local November election ballots to be set.
“Wise counsel to the mayor and City Council would be: Admit that it didn’t call the charter amendment election in the right way, do not put those charter amendments on the November ballot, accept the judgment of the court," he said. "You have the opportunity, with a deadline in February, to go through the proper public notice and hearing, and put them on the ballot in May, or wait until next November. That easy."
Gamble's injunction over the charter amendment election is set to expire early next year, after a trial that's now scheduled for Jan. 21.
Also of note
The Save Our Springs-led lawsuit didn't target a 14th ballot proposition that will be appearing on only a handful of South Austin ballots this fall.
Proposition P stems from a resident request to remove about 100 acres of land from Austin's extraterritorial jurisdiction. The election was ordered through a separate item at council's August budget adoption meeting.
While Aleshire said that "careless" move by council members also "clearly violated" open meetings law, he said there wasn't interest in broadening the legal challenge to include that proposition.
