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
| Tex. App. | Oct 21, 2015Background
- In April 2015 petitioners (Communities for Thriving Water, O’Connell, Knecht, et al.) submitted a charter-amendment petition to the City Clerk of San Marcos with ~1,634 signatures (exceeding the 5% threshold in Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 9.004).
- The City Clerk declined to count signatures because petition pages lacked a circulator’s oath; City then sued petitioners seeking declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees.
- Petitioners counterclaimed and sought mandamus to compel the City to verify signatures and place the charter amendment on the November 3, 2015 ballot; the district court denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and ordered the City to count signatures and, if sufficient, call the election.
- The City filed an interlocutory appeal, which stayed district-court proceedings and, given statutory scheduling deadlines (Election Code), prevented a timely order for the November ballot.
- The Texas Supreme Court denied an emergency mandamus; two justices concurred (procedural reasons), two justices dissented on the merits (would have granted mandamus). Appellees argue the mandamus claim is now moot as the deadline passed; declaratory-fee claims remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of mandamus (deadline passed) | Mandamus is moot because statutory deadline to order election (for Nov. 3) passed, so appellate court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal | City pursued interlocutory appeal but knew deadline would pass; nevertheless contends appeal is proper | Court of appeals should dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction if mandamus relief can no longer have practical effect (Appellees argue dismissal) |
| Original jurisdiction for election-related mandamus | Trial courts have concurrent original mandamus jurisdiction and may adjudicate mandamus to compel election duties | City contends mandamus belongs in appellate courts or is unavailable against municipalities in this posture | Precedent supports district-court original mandamus jurisdiction in election matters (Appellees assert affirmation of district court denial of plea) |
| Proper defendant for mandamus (City vs. individual officials) | Mandamus may issue against a municipal body; Local Gov’t Code § 9.004 imposes duties on governing body/city council | City argues mandamus must name individual public officials, not the municipal corporation | Appellees cite authority and statute permitting mandamus against government bodies; courts have issued such writs (Appellees argue district court was correct) |
| Circulator’s oath / charter interpretation | City’s circulator-oath requirement (Charter §6.03) does not govern charter-amendment petitions; §12.11 defers to state law (which does not require a circulator oath) | City contends charter provisions requiring oath apply, so petition signatures were invalid | Appellees (and some judges) conclude charter’s amendment clause relies on state law and does not incorporate §6.03 oath requirement; imposing the oath would contradict state law and hinder the petition process |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2005) (attorney-fee/UDJA mootness principles)
- Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1991) (district court original mandamus to compel election duties)
- Vondy v. Commissioners Court of Uvalde County, 620 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. 1981) (district courts possess original mandamus jurisdiction over governmental bodies)
- Blume v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1999) (when requisite signatures are valid, municipal authority must submit amendment to voters)
- Coalson v. City Council of Victoria, 610 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. 1980) (charter amendment powers construed liberally in favor of people)
- Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 1998) (construction principles for city charters and voter-initiative rights)