The fuller version of the Chron story addresses the question about whether the petition drive was lawful or not according to the city’s charter.
“It is your absolute sworn duty to place this on the ballot,” [Mayor Annise] Parker told council.
Several camera supporters on council disagreed, saying the proposal was “illegal” because it circumvented rules in the city charter that dictate that efforts to overturn city ordinances through referendum must be concluded within 30 days of a law taking effect. Since the red light camera ordinance was passed in 2004, some council members said, the petition was too late.
“Items like this don’t belong in the city charter,” said Councilwoman Anne Clutterbuck, who led the fight against the amendment. “Otherwise, we would be like California. … Anything we vote on at this table could be overturned by petition.”
[City Attorney David] Feldman, who forcefully argued that it was council members’ “mandatory ministerial duty” to put the amendment on the November ballot, acknowledged that the city charter does hold referendum proponents to the 30-day time limit. State law, however, has no such provision. He argued that state law would trump the charter in this case.
Clearly, that will be one of the issues for a judge to rule on, if and when someone files suit to stop the referendum. I want to also call your attention to this comment by JJMB from my previous entry that clarifies things further:
The City Charter itself has both a “referendum” section and an “initiative” section. The Kuboshes have avoided both of those procedures. “Initiative and referendum” are the way that voters have reacted to specific laws for hundreds of years. The hurdles are higher — react within 30 days and get 10% the highest Mayor election turnout in the last 3 years for referendum, or no time limit but 15% for an initiative. Notwithstanding the news reports, I believe that the initiative route has also been suggested as the way this should go — maybe not by KHS, but by some council members and lawyers.
I believe one could be a stickler and say that the 30 day process is the only way to go to rescind an ordinance that the representative body already put in place. But I read Kuffner’s prior post, and I’m willing to let the Kuboshes proceed with the initiative process, even though literally — and for 200 years — that is used to put a new ordinance in place without the representative body.
But it seems that the Kuboshes don’t want to go either of the way that the City voters — who put the City Charter in place — have established as the correct path.
Instead, the Kuboshes use state law to amend the charter itself. So along with “governance” type sections about whether the Mayor is strong or weak, how many councilmembers, term limits, voting procedures, etc., they want to add a specific red light camera rule. This is not the historical use of “referendum.”
But the 15% path is what … 40,000 signatures? So the Kuboshes took the easier 20,000 signature route.
Actually, by my calculation based on 181,000 votes cast in the last Mayoral election, it’s a bit more than 27,000 signatures. I’m unsure as a result of checking that figure where the 21,000-and-change figure for getting on the ballot this year came from, but if that was the standard, then a 15% threshold would be 31,500. Either one is more than the total that the Kuboshes submitted.
Anyway, JJMB’s comment clears up my confusion from that earlier post. I only quoted from section 3 of the city charter, entitled “Referendum”. I had skipped over section 2, entitled “Initiative”, because of this language:
The initiative shall be exercised in the following manner:
(a) Petition. A petition signed and verified in the manner and form required for recall petition in Article VI-a by qualified electors equal to fifteen per cent. of the total vote cast at the Democratic Primary for the nomination of Mayor and Commissioners, next preceding the filing of said petition, accompanied by the proposed legislation or measure in the form of a proposed ordinance or resolution, and requesting that such ordinance or resolution be submitted to a vote of the people, if not passed by the Council, shall be filed with the Secretary.
I saw the word “recall” and assumed it was specifically about recall elections, so I didn’t read this all the way through. Given that this mechanism exists, I take back my comments about the 30-day window being too restrictive. If this is the requirement for an effort outside of that time frame, then it’s clear that the Kuboshes have fallen short of the signature total needed, and it would seem that a state judge would be likely to toss this off the ballot. But again, until someone actually sues and a judge actually rules, it’s on.
One more thing:
Councilwoman Jolanda Jones questioned why council members did not put up a similar fight against another charter amendment proposal backed by powerful engineers that asks voters to tax themselves for an $8 billion program to shore up the city’s infrastructure and fix flooding problems.
“I just want us to be consistent,” Jones said.
The difference here is that the Kubosh effort is aiming at overturning an existing Council-enacted law, while the Renew Houston effort is not. At least, that’s how I perceive it. But I take CM Jones’ point.