City of Galena Park v. Barry Ponder
503 S.W.3d 625
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- In September 2014 Barry Ponder delivered petition materials to Galena Park City Secretary Mayra Gonzales seeking to place four proposed charter amendments on the ballot; the packet included signature pages but the proposed amendment text was not attached to those signature pages when submitted.
- Signature pages contained language demanding the attached charter amendments be placed before voters and included notarized circulator statements; Gonzales reviewed the signatures and concluded 492 were valid, exceeding the 5% threshold in Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 9.004(a).
- The City Attorney (DeFoyd) concluded the submitted papers did not constitute a proper petition because the signature pages lacked the amendment text, the amendments covered multiple subjects, and the city secretary did not certify the petition. Some signatories later averred they were told the petition concerned lowering water bills.
- Ponder sued after the city commission refused to call an election; the trial court granted summary judgment for Ponder and ordered the amendments placed on the ballot. Galena Park appealed, and both parties had filed competing summary-judgment motions.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding the summary-judgment record did not conclusively show the signatories supported the specific petition Ponder submitted, nor that Gonzales certified the petition as valid beyond counting signatures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ponder) | Defendant's Argument (Galena Park) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the submitted papers constituted a valid petition under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 9.004 | The packet met statutory requirements: enough qualified signatures and Gonzales’s letter showing signatures exceeded 5% obligated the city to hold an election | The papers were not a proper petition because the signature pages lacked the amendment text, signatories may not have supported the submitted amendments, and procedural defects existed | Denied as to Ponder: summary judgment improper because record fails to conclusively show signatories supported the specific submitted petition |
| Whether Gonzales’s letter certified the petition and imposed a ministerial duty to hold an election | Gonzales’s letter certifying valid signatures amounted to certification of the petition and required submission to voters | Gonzales only certified signature validity and expressly declined to investigate circulation or whether the petition as a whole was proper | Held for Galena Park on this point: the letter did not certify the petition; it only reported signature count/validity |
| Whether multiple proposed amendments in one submission violate § 9.004(d) (single-subject rule) | N/A (Ponder did not successfully rely on this to secure judgment) | The packet impermissibly contained multiple subjects and some amendments contained multiple subjects | Rejected: § 9.004(d) prohibits multi-subject amendments on the ballot, but petitioners may propose multiple separate amendments; here amendment two’s police and fire provisions were viewed as part of the same subject and did not defeat petition validity |
| Whether the trial court should have rendered judgment for Galena Park | Galena Park argued it was entitled to summary judgment because the petition was legally deficient | Ponder argued fact issues existed and the city secretary’s letter resolved the matter | Denied: Galena Park did not conclusively establish entitlement to summary judgment because material fact questions remained about what signatories actually supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (summary-judgment burdens and standards)
- Coalson v. City Council of Victoria, 610 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. 1980) (municipal duty to submit valid petition-supported charter amendments is ministerial)
- In re Roof, 130 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (initiative/referral requirements and ministerial duty)
- In re Woodfill, 470 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2015) (city secretary certification issues in referendum/mandamus context)
- Taxpayer’s Ass’n of Harris Cty. v. City of Houston, 105 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1937) (initiative and referendum construed liberally in favor of reserved power)