Clarify language austin texas code#
For the land-use code proposition, the McMurtry brief argued that in omitting the term “CodeNEXT” (and other aspects), the Council’s draft did not accurately track the language of the original petition. For the “efficiency audit” proposition, the English brief argued that Council added “extraneous” language (concerning the audit process and potential cost) that would be misleading for voters.
Clarify language austin texas full#
According to the city’s pleading in the audit case, “The ballot language needs to be locked in place by no later than September 4th for the Travis County Clerk to be able to have the full ballot ready in time to go to the printer on September 7th.”Īlthough arguments in the separate lawsuits (represented in both cases by attorney Bill Aleshire) differed to a degree, the relators ( Ed English and Allan McMurtry) argued that the Council’s drafted propositions do not accurately or adequately represent the intent of the referendum petitions that initiated them. Council would need to post a meeting for that revision (with 72 hours notice), and possibly subject to additional legal review. Had the Court approved mandamus in either case, it would have required that Council rewrite its drafted proposition under whatever directions provided by the Court. 24 – “if the language is to be invalidated.” In its brief, the city had requested that the Court rule by Friday, Aug. The lawsuits, filed by “relators” (persons who had signed the referendum petitions), went directly to the Supreme Court because of short deadlines governing the ballot preparation by the City Clerk and Travis County. 23, and both sides had requested quick rulings. The City of Austin filed its final submission – a response on the land-use code proposition – Aug. The relevant pleadings had been filed over the last two weeks. The rulings were issued without explanation, but did note that in the case of the efficiency audit proposition, three Justices – Eva Guzman, Jeff Brown, and Jimmy Blacklock – would have “conditionally” granted mandamus relief. Texas Supreme Court (Courtesy of State of Texas)
0 kommentar(er)
