the City of San Marcos, Texas v. Sam Brannon, Communities for Thriving Water-Flouride Free San Marcos, and Kathleen O'Connell, 03-15-00518-CV

In April 2015 petitioners submitted a citizen petition to amend the San Marcos charter to prohibit water fluoridation; petitioners claim >1,600 valid signatures (threshold ≈1,090).
The San Marcos City Clerk refused to count the petition signatures, asserting the petition lacked required oath/affirmation; City Council did not certify the petition.
Petitioners (Communities, O’Connell, Brannon, Knecht) answered the City’s declaratory-suit and filed counterclaims seeking mandamus to compel the City to place the amendment on the November 3, 2015 ballot.
The City filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction arguing (1) mandamus in election matters lies in appellate courts under the Election Code and (2) mandamus must be directed at a public official (the City Clerk or councilmembers), who were not named or served.
The trial court denied the City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction; the City filed an accelerated appeal. The Texas Supreme Court later denied a related original mandamus petition filed by relators.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court has jurisdiction to grant mandamus in election-related disputes	Petitioners: district courts may issue mandamus; Vondy/Anderson support trial-court mandamus	City: Election Code §273.061 confers original mandamus jurisdiction to Supreme Court or courts of appeals, excluding district courts	Trial court denied City's plea; City appealed (jurisdiction dispute unresolved at trial level)
Whether a public official is a necessary party for mandamus to compel election duties	Petitioners: relief against the City (governing body) is appropriate; duty under Local Gov’t Code §9.004 rests with the governing body	City: mandamus ordinarily targets a public officer (e.g., city clerk, councilmembers); those necessary parties were not named or served	Trial court allowed the mandamus counterclaim to proceed despite City’s argument; City preserved jurisdictional challenge on appeal

Bejarano v. Moody, 901 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995) (held mandamus relief lies with appellate courts rather than district courts)
Sears v. Bayoud, 786 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. 1990) (discusses availability and scope of mandamus relief)
Vondy v. Comm’rs Court of Uvalde County, 620 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. 1981) (recognized original mandamus jurisdiction in district court in governmental disputes)
Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1991) (upheld district court authority to grant mandamus against municipal officials to compel ministerial acts)
Blume v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1999) (explains duty to submit charter amendment to popular vote when petition meets statutory signature threshold)
Palomo v. City of San Antonio, 366 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2012) (example of appellate mandamus in election context)
Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n, 141 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. 2004) (addresses necessary parties and procedural prerequisites for equitable and extraordinary relief)