That other Prop 2

You may recall last year's Propositions 1 and 2, which were revenue cap measures on the City of Houston ballot. Both passed, with establishment-backed Prop 1 getting more votes. The city says that means that by the Houston charter, only Prop 1 gets enacted, as it conflicts with Prop 2. Prop 2 backers cried foul and filed suit to force its acceptance. Yesterday, their suit survived a motion for summary judgment.

State District Judge Tad Halbach's ruling kept alive an effort by a group trying to force the city to curtail its spending by limiting revenue from property taxes and other sources.

The one-page ruling doesn't address the merits of the case, which arises from last year's referendum on two competing revenue measures: Proposition 1, supported by White's administration, and Proposition 2, pushed by advocates of limiting government spending.

In denying the city's motion for summary judgment, a common pretrial request by defendants in civil cases, the judge said there are enough questions about the facts in the case that a trial is necessary to resolve the dispute. The judge also denied the city's effort to get the case dismissed under the argument that the plaintiffs didn't have legal standing to bring their suit.

The trial is set for February, which means we ought to be in for a few months of guilty pleasure, since the pro-Prop 2 forces have an old friend on their side:

"What this means is, we'll go to trial on the merits," said Andy Taylor, an attorney representing the Proposition 2 backers. "We remain very confident, and we're very eager to try this case and look forward to victory."

Yes, that's the same Andy Taylor who represented Talmadge Heflin. If his proclamations about this case are as accurate as they were about that one, Prop 1 backers have nothing to fear. Stay tuned.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on November 04, 2005 to Local politics | TrackBack