in Re Cleo Petricek, 629 S.W.3d 913

Background:

Over 25,000 Austin voters submitted a citizen-initiated ordinance petition (including a caption) to establish minimum standards for the Austin Police Department; the petition was certified as sufficient.
The Austin City Council ordered a November 2, 2021 election and adopted its own ballot language rather than using the petitioned caption verbatim.
The City’s ballot language added a five-year cost estimate ($271.5M–$598.8M) and other substantive details not present in the petition caption.
Relator Cleo Petricek (a petitioner) sought mandamus relief after the court of appeals denied relief without opinion, asking the Texas Supreme Court to require the City to use the petition caption on the ballot.
The central legal question was whether the Austin City Charter requires the petition caption to appear on the ballot verbatim, and if not, what modifications the City may lawfully make.
The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus: the City must use the petition caption supplemented only by the City’s five-year cost estimate; other revisions were improper.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Austin City Charter require the ballot to state the petitioned caption verbatim?	Charter’s art. IV §5 imposes nondiscretionary duty to use petition caption as the ballot wording.	Election Code §52.072 lets the authority ordering the election prescribe proposition wording.	Charter controls here: if caption complies with law, City must use it; otherwise City has limited power to fix legal defects.
Who may craft ballot wording when a petitioned ordinance is submitted?	Petitioners should control wording because charter mandates caption on ballot.	City says Election Code assigns responsibility to city council/secretary to prepare proposition language.	Both: Election Code is default, but a city charter may lawfully require use of the petition caption. City may act only to cure legal defects.
Did the petitioned caption mislead by omitting fiscal impact?	Omission of cost is not required and could mislead; petition is not an appropriation.	Cost omission here is misleading because ordinance’s stated purpose requires funding; voters should know cost.	Omission of cost was a legal defect under Dacus; City appropriately added the five-year cost estimate.
Was the City’s wholesale rewrite of the caption permissible?	Relator: No—Charter permits only necessary fixes; rest must remain verbatim.	City: Broad discretion to craft accurate, informative ballot language (including adding details).	City abused discretion by replacing the caption wholesale. The proper ballot is the petition caption plus the City’s five-year cost estimate and nothing more.

Key Cases Cited

Dacus v. Parker, 466 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. 2015) (ballot language must identify measure’s chief features and not mislead; omission of funding can be misleading)
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 397 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. 1965) (caption must give notice of an ordinance’s purpose)
Reynolds Land & Cattle Co. v. McCabe, 12 S.W. 165 (Tex. 1888) (ballot must submit the question with definiteness and certainty)
In re AutoNation, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. 2007) (mandamus standard: clear abuse of discretion with no adequate appellate remedy)
In re Williams, 470 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. 2015) (voters who sign petitions have standing to seek mandamus to correct ballots)
City of Galena Park v. Ponder, 503 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (discusses Election Code §52.072 and authority to craft ballot language)
In re Durnin, 619 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. 2021) (prior Austin ballot-language mandamus proceeding addressing similar charter/Election Code tension)