466 S.W.3d 820
Tex.2015Background
- Houston voters approved a 2010 charter amendment creating a "Dedicated Pay-As-You-Go Fund for Drainage and Streets," which included drainage charges on benefitting properties as a funding source.
- Pre-election publications (text of the amendment and a fiscal-impact summary) disclosed drainage charges, but the ballot proposition itself did not mention those charges; it only described creating a dedicated fund to "enhance, improve and renew drainage systems and streets."
- Contestants (registered voters) filed an election contest after the amendment passed, seeking to invalidate the adoption on the ground the ballot language was misleading by omitting the drainage charges.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City; the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court accepted review due to inconsistent appellate authority on the ballot‑language standard.
- The Supreme Court held the ballot failed the common‑law standard because omitting the widespread drainage charges concealed a chief feature of the measure and thus could mislead voters; it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dacus) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ballot sufficiently described the charter amendment when it omitted drainage charges | Omission of drainage charges failed to "substantially submit" the amendment with "definiteness and certainty"; charges are a chief feature and fiscal burden that must appear on the ballot | Ballot need only identify and distinguish the measure; voters are presumed familiar from pre‑election publications so details may be omitted | Ballot insufficient: omission of widespread drainage charges withheld a chief feature and could mislead voters; common‑law standard requires identifying character, purpose, and chief features |
| Proper standard for ballot language | Emphasizes Reynolds: ballot must substantially submit question with definiteness and certainty; must name chief features | Argues identification/distinguishability among propositions is adequate given publication requirements | Court reaffirmed Reynolds test (definiteness/certainty and chief‑features requirement) and disapproved a mere «distinguish from other propositions» test |
| Role of pre‑election publication in satisfying ballot clarity | Publication does not relieve the ballot of its duty to disclose chief features | City contends publication of full text/fiscal summary makes omission on the ballot acceptable | Publication helpful but not dispositive; ballot must itself identify chief features, especially revenue‑raising elements |
| Remedy after erroneous summary judgment for City | Contestants sought relief to invalidate amendment | City relied on summary judgment outcome and appellate affirmance | Court reversed court of appeals, held summary judgment inappropriate, and remanded to trial court for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds Land & Cattle Co. v. McCabe, 12 S.W. (Tex. 1888) (ballot must substantially submit question with definiteness and certainty)
- Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1999) (discusses ballot‑language standard)
- R.R. Comm’n v. Sterling Oil & Ref. Co., 218 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1949) (pre‑election publication may inform voters but ballot must still describe chief features)
- Wright v. Board of Trustees of Tatum Indep. Sch. Dist., 520 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975) (proposition must show character and purpose)
- Turner v. Lewie, 201 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Civ. App. 1947) (proposition should state chief features)