Supreme Court Axes 3 Dallas Ballot Proposals

     In an opinion released Wednesday, September 11, 2024, the state Supreme Court concluded that the counterpropositions could mislead voters because the ballot language didn’t acknowledge that they conflicted with rival proposals backed by the nonprofit group Dallas Hero, an advocate for stronger public safety measures. “Simultaneously holding an election on contradictory propositions with which the city cannot comply is confusing, and ballot language that fails to address that contradiction or how it will be resolved does not ‘substantially submit the question … with such definiteness and certainty that voters are not misled,’ ” the court opinion reads. The opinion says ordering the city to remove Propositions K, M and N from the ballot is “the appropriate remedy” because they are the “source of the confusion.”

     Dallas Hero led a summer campaign to get three charter amendments on the ballot. If approved, they will require a minimum of 4,000 police officers and devote excess city revenue to public safety, tie the city manager’s job status and pay bonuses to an annual community survey, and force the city to waive its governmental immunity to allow lawsuits regarding not following local and state laws. The nonprofit has said its trio of amendments are necessary tools to improve safe-ty and to hold government officials accountable, but city leaders have said the ide-as are fiscally irresponsible and detrimental to nearly all city services.

     Still, state law required the city to include them on the ballot because each petition received more than 20,000 valid voter signatures in support. After greenlighting the Dallas Hero proposals on Aug. 14, the City Council approved three charter amendments of its own to make clear that the council has the final say on how city funds are appropriated, that the council has the final say on the job status and compensation of the city manager, and that nothing written in the charter is intended to waive the city’s governmental immunity from legal action.

     Cathy Cortina Arvizu, a voter who signed petitions to get all three Dallas Hero proposals on the ballot, sued the city and most of the council last month, alleging that the latter’s proposals were un-constitutional, would confuse voters and shouldn’t be allowed on the ballot. The appeals court dismissed the group’s petition, saying it didn’t have the jurisdiction to grant such an order. Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a brief with the state Supreme Court supporting the legal challenge by Arvizu and Dallas Hero. In a response to the state Supreme Court, city attorneys argued that the purpose and impact of the counter-proposals were written clearly and didn’t warrant being changed or dropped from the ballot.