In re Woodfill
470 S.W.3d 473
| Tex. | 2015Background
- Residents of Houston filed a referendum petition to repeal or place the equal rights ordinance before voters; City Council refused to act.
- The petition process is governed by Houston Charter art. VH-b, § 2(a)-(b) and § 3, creating a three-step procedure culminating in Council action or a voter referendum.
- The petition required 17,269 valid signatures; City Secretary certified 17,846 valid signatures but signaled City Attorney concerns about pages containing signatures.
- City Secretary certified sufficiency and presented to Council; City Attorney later findings questioned validity of many petition pages.
- Council refused to act, prompting mandamus proceedings; district court later held 16,684 valid signatures (still below the threshold).
- Texas Supreme Court conditionally grants mandamus, holding City Secretary’s certification triggered Council’s ministerial duty to reconsider or place the ordinance on the ballot, and that lack of timely action justifies mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did City Secretary's certification trigger a ministerial duty? | Woodfill: certification activates Council’s ministerial duty to reconsider or ballot. | City: certification contested due to City Attorney findings; petition not sufficient. | Yes; certification invoked ministerial duty. |
| May Council reevaluate sufficiency of petition after certification? | Council must act immmediately after certification; no discretionary re-evaluation. | Council can review validity and forego action if petition insufficient. | Council has no discretion; must act on certification. |
| Is there an adequate remedy by appeal? | Appeal cannot timely resolve before November 2015 ballot. | Adequate remedy by appeal exists. | No adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus appropriate to ensure timely ballot. |
| What relief should the court grant? | Mandamus to compel Council to repeal or place on ballot by a deadline. | Relief not warranted if petition insufficient. | Grant mandamus; direct Council to act and place measure on November 2015 ballot if not repealed by Aug 24, 2015. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taxpayers’ Ass’n. of Harris Cnty. v. City of Houston, 105 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1937) (referendum power reserved to the people must be protected)
- Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.1991) (minimial duties defined; ministerial vs discretionary acts)
- In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152 (Tex.2008) (mandamus requires no adequate remedy by appeal)
- Coalson v. City Council of Victoria, 610 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.1980) (mandamus to require recall/election when petition certified)
- In re Jones, 335 S.W.3d 772 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2011) (proper certification compels council to act; no discretionary review)