in Re Linda Durnin, Eric Krohn, & Michael Lovins, 619 S.W.3d 250

Austin Charter reserves initiative power to voters; petitioned ordinances certified by the city clerk must be either adopted by council as submitted or submitted to voters.
Petition titled “Petition to Save Austin Now…” certified with >26,000 signatures proposing amendments to Austin City Code sections banning camping, solicitation, and sitting/lying/sleeping outdoors in certain areas; it included a caption describing those amendments.
City attorney proposed two alternative ballot-proposition wordings; city council adopted Option 2, which paraphrases and narrows/describes the ordinance differently than the petition caption.
Relators filed emergency mandamus petitions arguing (1) the Austin Charter requires the ballot to use the caption in the certified petition, so council lacked authority to substitute its own proposition; and (2) alternatively, the council’s chosen language is misleading and violates common-law ballot-language rules.
The Supreme Court (majority) concluded relators did not make the clear showing required for emergency mandamus on the charter question; Justice Boyd (dissent) would have granted mandamus because the charter plainly requires using the petition caption and the council had no discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Austin Charter requires the ballot proposition to be the caption from a certified initiative petition	The charter’s command that the ballot “shall state the caption of the ordinance” means the petition’s caption is the required proposition; council lacks discretion	Election Code gives the authority ordering the election (council) the power to prescribe proposition wording; council must avoid misleading captions and thus may draft wording	Court (majority): denied emergency mandamus on this showing and did not resolve merits; Boyd dissent: would hold the charter requires use of the petition caption and would grant mandamus
Whether the city council’s chosen ballot language is misleading or violates common-law requirements	Council’s Option 2 mischaracterizes and narrows the measure, potentially misleading voters and effectively criminalizing homelessness beyond petition text	Council’s language clarifies scope and avoids confusing or pernicious captions; council has authority to craft proposition to identify chief features	Majority explained the council’s language is misleading (per dissent’s agreement); Boyd dissent agrees it’s misleading but would not rely on that issue to grant relief

Dacus v. Parker, 466 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. 2015) (Election Code requires a proposition to identify a measure’s chief features so voters are not misled)
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 397 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. 1965) (definition and role of an ordinance caption as notice of purpose)
Perryman v. Spartan Tex. Six Cap. Partners, Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. 2018) (interpretation that the word “shall” denotes mandatory action)