Austin City Council member Don Zimmerman filed a lawsuit June 16 against Mayor Steve Adler in Travis County District Court. The lawsuit claims the ballot language for Proposition 1—which if passed would have repealed the law requiring fingerprint-based background checks for ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft drivers—was misleading to voters and omitted key information. Zimmerman asks the court to void the May 7 election and order the city of Austin to hold a new election. “Regardless of your position as to what regulation is appropriate, the voters are entitled to a fair ballot description,” he said in a statement. City Council painted, “a one-sided picture designed to persuade voters that the [repeal of background checks] would reduce safety,” Zimmerman’s attorney Jerad Najvar of Houston-based Najvar Law Firm wrote in the suit. Austin City Council voted in December 2015 to mandate fingerprint-based background checks for drivers of ridesharing companies. In February, a petition was filed by citizens to the city clerk in opposition to City Council’s vote. Because Austin City Council did not adopt the citizens’ petition, the city charter required the issue be put to voters. Prop 1 would have repealed some regulations imposed on ridesharing companies by the 2015 vote, but it failed May 7 in a citywide election with 56 percent against the measure and 44 percent approving it. In the June 16 lawsuit, Zimmerman claims “this [loss] was not the true outcome of the election.” On May 7, voters were not told the existing background check mandate was “rife with gaps” and “wholly unenforceable,” according to the lawsuit. According to the suit, the 2015 vote stated, “If the criminal background check indicates that a person has been convicted of certain offenses, to be specified by separate ordinance, that person is prohibited from driving for a [transportation network company].” “As of this filing, the City Council still has not designated criminal offenses that will result in ineligibility,” Najvar wrote. In addition, although the city touted the 2015 ordinance as a public safety measure, it does not guarantee riders will always have a driver who has passed a background check, Najvar wrote. At its June 16 meeting—the day the lawsuit was filed—City Council voted to approve a list of criminal offenses that would prohibit drivers from working for ridesharing companies, which included any felony conviction as well as misdemeanor convictions of fraud, property damage, driving under the influence and any crime of violence. At a May 19 City Council meeting, Adler said the council needs to have additional discussions to clarify when and how to enforce measures outlined in the 2015 ordinance. The Prop 1 ballot language also failed to mention fees that would be imposed on ridesharing companies’ annual local gross revenues and taxpayer dollars that would be used to fund driver fingerprinting, the suit stated. “The ballot description ignored the clear mandates of Texas law, I believe deliberately, in order to confuse voters and doom the vote on the amendments,” Zimmerman said. “So this goes beyond one election. If the city can get away with confusing voters to manipulate election results, then who is going to go through all the hard work it takes to get a petition on the ballot? This case is not about Uber and Lyft. It’s fundamental. It’s about your right to petition your government and have an honest election.” Adler could not be reached at press time. This story has been updated to include a statement from Don Zimmerman.