A number of citizen-led petitions seeking to amend the Dallas City Charter are making their way onto the November ballot as propositions, but it is unclear whether the city attorney or other officials will change the ballot language to undermine the spirit of the proposals.
As previously reported by The Dallas Express, four citizen-led petitions were certified by the city secretary earlier this week. If approved by voters, one would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, another would require an increase in the number of police officers in the field, one would tie city manager pay to performance, and another would allow residents to sue City officials if they do not comply with the Dallas City Charter or City Code.
The Dallas Express contacted City Attorney Tammy Palomino and shared with her documented history of municipal-level officials in Texas messing with ballot language to thwart the will of petition signatories, denying voters a chance to realize the proposals as they were originally intended.
In Austin, for instance, the city’s legal department advised council members on the drafting of ballot language for a citizen-led petition organized by Save Austin Now. The petition dealt with homeless encampments, and council members changed the language. Save Austin Now sued the city, and the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the council members adopted misleading language for the proposition as it appeared on the ballot.
“[City leaders] all play games with ballot language,” Save Austin Now co-founder Matt Mackowiak told DX in a previous interview. “Cities don’t like citizen petitions because it reduces their power. It reduces their ability to control policy and to control decisions. It can be a very effective tool because it becomes a check on the powers of the city council and mayor.”
DX asked Palomino about her stance on changing petition language before putting it on the ballot. DX also wanted to know how Palomino or her office would advise council members to modify the language if she believed doing so might make her and other officials vulnerable to potential federal 1983 complaints or civil rights violation lawsuits. Lastly, DX asked whether she would be concerned about potentially disenfranchising voters by changing the language tens of thousands of petition signers had endorsed.
A City spokesperson relayed Palomino’s response: “Thank you for your inquiry. We are aware of the petition, and we will advise our client accordingly.”
DX had previously contacted City Secretary Bilierae Johnson and asked whether her office was concerned about alternative charter amendment language being put on the ballot.
“Ballot language is not decided by my office. And yes, I am always concerned when it comes to the [issue] you have raised,” Johnson replied.
Distortion of the certified petitions could have some consequences for officials, at least according to a poll conducted by Dallas HERO, the bipartisan initiative behind three of the four petitions heading to the Dallas City Council.
The poll showed that if officials messed with the ballot language, 13% of respondents would take legal action, 42% would vote against city council members in future elections, 15% would call, visit, send letters, or speak at city council meetings about the issue, 20% would initiate a recall against city council members, and 8% would organize neighborhood or community action. Some 43% said they would engage in all the listed forms of action.
Only 9% of respondents said they would do nothing.