The Proposition 1 vs. Proposition 2 battle is now in court and Ron Nissimov has the details:
A three-judge panel today skeptically questioned the city’s claim that it does not have to enact Proposition 2, a city revenue cap initiative approved by voters in November.
“I can’t imagine that the Legislature said, ‘If a City Council doesn’t like it, it doesn’t have to become law,'” Justice Laura Carter Higley told Scott Atlas, a private lawyer representing the city in the case.
Atlas claimed that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to order the city to enact Proposition 2 because state law does not require the city to enact the amendment.
Andy Taylor, a lawyer representing the backers of Proposition 2, said such a policy would give any city a “pocket veto” over voter-approved initiatives.
The city also contends that backers of Proposition 2 don’t have standing to sue after the election, because the legal dispute no longer involves the election itself.
“Who would have standing to sue?” Chief Justice Sherry Radack asked Atlas, who replied that the Texas Attorney General would have standing.
And here’s a refresher bit of background:
Mayor Bill White contends that according to state law, the city cannot enact Proposition 2 because it would contradict Proposition 1, a charter amendment backed by White that was approved by a larger number of voters in November. Under the city’s charter, if voters approve two charter amendments in the same election that have conflicting policies, the city must enact only the amendment that garners the most votes.
Backers of Proposition 2 contend that the two amendments can coexist.
This will be VERY interesting to watch play out.
RELATED: The Prop. 2 tall tale that won’t go away (blogHOUSTON)