On January 24, courts in two states issued rulings in favor of standing for ordinary citizens in election lawsuits. In Texas, the 5th Circuit issued this six-page opinion in City of Houston v American Traffic Solutions, 11-20068, ruling that proponents of a city initiative do have standing to intervene in a lawsuit over whether the initiative (which the voters approved) should take effect. The initiative blocks red-light cameras at traffic intersections. The lower court had refused to let the initiative proponents intervene.
Also on January 24, a Virginia state court ruled that citizens do have standing to challenge the authority of the legislature to pass a U.S. House redistricting bill this year. The State Constitution says the legislature must pass redistricting bills for U.S. House in the odd year following the census, but the legislature did not do that. The case is Little v Virginia State Board of Elections, CL11-5253, in Circuit Court in the city of Richmond. The court will now decide whether to draw the districts itself. A similar case on this point is also pending in federal court in Virginia. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news; his blog has a link to the decision.
How many states have deadlines for other stuff — passing budgets, etc. ???
In Houston, the voters approved a charter amendment.
The federal district court judge ruled that the city did not have the authority to put the initiated charter amendment on the ballot. Under the Houston charter, the city council gets to set the ballot language for charter amendment ballot measures whether proposed by the city council or initiative.
Traditionally, they try to use misleading language, and often put competing measures on the ballot. In this case they did not put a competing measure on the ballot, but did try to confuse. You had to vote NO if you wanted to approved the change.
The federal judge then interpreted the city charter to mean that the city council should not have permitted the charter amendment to be placed on the ballot. The city then agreed they had been wrong to let the initiative they opposed to be on the ballot, and didn’t appeal (wink wink) The actual backers of the initiative were denied standing.
This is similar to the case in Kinston, NC where the voters approved an initiative that would have made city elections nonpartisan (as they are in most NC cities). After the USDOJ denied preclearance, the city council which was elected by partisan election decided not to appeal, and so far the actual backers of the initiative are still fighting to intervene.
Citizens of Texas cities have the power of initiative to change their city’s charter, under Texas statute. Houston voters almost a century ago amended the charter to permit the initiative and referendum with respect to city ordinances.
The problem with holding referendum on an ordinance, is that the city council can simply re-pass the law. A charter amendment at least requires the voters to vote again.
A side effect of a referendum is that it suspends an enactment until it can be voted on. That is why referendums must be filed so soon after an ordinance is passed. But the voters may always initiate an ordinance change, or amend the charter at any time.
The power to elect the officers of the city, to recall them, to approve charter amendments, to use the initiative to propose changes to both the charter and ordinances, and the referendum to reject ordinances passed by the city council, are all sovereign powers of the People, whose sole discretion is to how they exercise those powers.
Unfortunately they don’t have the authority to remove federal judges who think they should interpret a city charter, and impose their opinions of when and how the People exercise their powers. The Judge suggested that it was somehow relevant that voters had not voted out city council members who supported the red light camera ordinance.