SAN BENE WINS ELECTION CASE, NO $100,000 FOR RIOS

FROM THE DECISION:

By petition for writ of mandamus filed in cause number 13-24-00566-CV and by notice of appeal filed in cause number 13-24-00579-CV, the City of San Benito (City) and Mayor Ricardo Guerra seek to set aside trial court orders that restrain them “from adopting [or] confirming any results from the November 5, 2024 election relating to the propositions and/or charter amendments identified in Order Number 2024-0806-001” and rendering void “all votes strictly from the November 5, 2024 election relating to the propositions and/or charter amendments identified in Order Number 2024-0806-001.”

(On Nov. 4 in Cameron County’s 197th state District Court, visiting Judge Michael Garcia voided the election following two weeks of early voting, citing a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

“The city disagrees with the judge’s decision to void the election and plans on taking any and all action necessary to fully protect the rights of its citizens to vote and the legitimate outcome of the votes cast by the citizens of San Benito,” city officials said then in a news release and appealed his decision to the 13th Court of Appeals.)

 

"We address both causes in a single opinion in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency In cause number 13-24-00579-CV, we reverse and remand, and in cause number 13-24- 00566-CV, we dismiss.

"On August 2, 2024, the City posted a notice for a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Commission to be held on August 6, 2024. The notice included eight “CONSENT AGENDA ITEM(S),” which were “considered to be routine,” would “be approved by one motion,” and for which “[t]here [would] be no separate discussion.” One of these items was identified as, “Consideration and possible action to approve Order Number 2024-0806-001, for the City of San Benito November 5, 2024, Charter Amendment Special Election.” 

"At the meeting, the City Commission approved Order Number 2024-0806-001, which provided for an election to be held on November 5, 2024, for the purpose of voting on the following five proposed amendments to the San Benito City Charter:

Proposition A

Amendments to the City of San Benito Charter for consistency with state law.

Proposition B

An amendment to the City of San Benito Charter requiring all members of

the City Commission to reside within the City limits during their term of

office.

Proposition C

An amendment to the City of San Benito Charter authorizing the City Commission to make appointments to the City Commission in the case of a vacancy where there is less than 365 days remaining in the vacant term.

Proposition D

An amendment to the City of San Benito Charter to allow the City Manager to reside outside the city limits.

Proposition E

An amendment to the City of San Benito Charter to provide for process and reasons for removal of municipal judges. 

"On October 17, 2024, Julian Rios, a registered voter residing in San Benito, filed a lawsuit against the City and Guerra alleging that they “violated the Texas Open Meetings Act [(TOMA)] by failing to provide the public with proper notice of the vote on and substance of Order Number 2024-0806-001.” Rios thus asserted that Order Number 2024-0806-001, the propositions, the charter amendments, and any votes cast regarding the propositions were void. Rios sought declaratory relief and injunctive relief. The trial court thereafter issued two restraining orders which are not at issue in these proceedings.

"On November 5, 2024, voters passed four of the five propositions regarding amendments to the City Charter. Specifically, voters passed Propositions A, B, C, and E, but they did not pass Proposition D, which would have allowed the city manager to reside outside the city limits.

"The City and Guerra (appellants) present seven issues asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief because: (1) the TOMA claim and injunctive relief claim under it were not ripe; (2) Rios failed to establish a probable right to recovery for the TOMA claim and failed to establish irreparable harm; (3) the TOMA claim is moot; (4) the orders improperly interfered with an election; (5) the orders create an undue hardship; (6) the injunctive relief exceeds the status quo; and (7) the trial court granted affirmative relief in the absence of a showing that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable injury or extreme hardship.

"...(T)he trial court’s orders improperly interfered with the elective process, once it had begun, in violation of the doctrine regarding separation of powers and the judiciary’s deference to the legislative branch...Accordingly, we conclude that under the circumstances present here, the trial court’s orders represented an impermissible exercise of judicial power that interfered in the political process. As stated previously, we dismiss the original proceeding filed in 13-24-00566-CV as moot. We likewise dismiss the motion to stay, previously carried with the case, as moot."