A bill under consideration in the Texas Senate seeks to nullify a Dallas charter amendment passed by voters just five months ago, prompting accusations that state lawmakers and local elites are trying to override the people’s will.
Proposition S, part of this voter-driven initiative, addresses critical issues like crime and urban blight in downtown Dallas, which residents have prioritized through their votes.
Failing to enforce Proposition S in Dallas would undermine the clear will of the voters who passed the HERO charter amendments, as highlighted during Monday’s Texas Senate hearing on Senate Bill 2594.
Senator Paul Bettencourt emphasized that these amendments, including mandates to bolster the police force and enhance citizen rights to sue the city, reflect the electorate’s demand for improved public safety and accountability. Bypassing its enforcement would dismiss the democratic mandate expressed by Dallas citizens, directly circumventing the heart of the home rule ordinance passed by Dallas voters.
“The heart of this is you have a home rule ordinance that was passed by your local voters,” stressed Bettencourt.
Senate Bill 2299, authored by Sen. Nathan Johnson (D-Dallas), would prohibit cities from altering their governmental immunity without explicit approval from the legislature. The bill is a direct response to Proposition S, a charter amendment approved by 55% of Dallas voters in November that allows residents to sue the city when it violates its own laws.
Senate Bill 2299 reads, in part: “AUTHORITY TO CHANGE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. A municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, rule, or other measure that purports to change the municipality’s governmental immunity unless the legislature adopts a resolution approving the proposed ordinance, rule, or measure.”
Monty Bennett, publisher of The Dallas Express and a supporter of Proposition S, called the bill an attempt to erase a democratic decision.
“This state law would nullify that Dallas victory and silence communities across Texas,” Bennett told the Senate Committee on Local Government. “Sovereign immunity shields cities from accountability, leaving residents powerless when local governments flout their own rules and state law.”
Bennett added, “This state law would undermine the will of the people, as demonstrated by Dallas voters just this past November.”
“This amendment doesn’t provide damages; it simply ensures accountability by providing injunctive relief and covering attorneys’ fees,” Bennett explained during his testimony. “It empowers citizens to hold their government to its own promises, fostering transparency and trust.”
Bennett also pointed out that shortly after Proposition S passed, Dallas rescinded its ordinance requiring a police force of 4,000 officers. He accused the city of sidestepping public mandates. “If you or I did this—we would go to jail. But the cities do this with impunity. Shame on them,” he said.
Damien LeVeck, executive director of Dallas HERO, the organization that backed the amendment, said the bill strips communities of one of the only tools available to enforce transparency.
Opponents of the voter-approved measure, including former Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings, argued in favor of nullifying it — even if that meant overriding the outcome of a public election.
“You play an important role here in the Senate by stepping in at times when municipalities do naive or stupid things—today is another time for you to step in,” Rawlings said during the hearing.
The former mayor’s remarks drew sharp rebukes online and from advocates of the amendment, who say elites believe everyday citizens aren’t smart enough to govern themselves — and that Rawlings’ use of “municipalities” was a thinly veiled jab at voters themselves.
Current Councilwoman Paula Blackmon joined Rawlings in opposing the amendment, saying city officials now have to spend time dealing with potential litigation: “These threats of lawsuits stop our work to finding practical solutions in the moment and forces us to work with our attorneys to prepare for a lawsuit—instead of prioritizing the problem solving… and service delivery.”
Despite Blackmon’s claims that Proposition S invites frivolous lawsuits and disrupts city governance, the amendment specifically gives the city 60 days to address and fix any violation before a lawsuit can even be filed — meaning litigation is only a last resort after the city refuses to comply with its own laws.
Prop S supporters argue that such accountability is exactly what voters intended when they passed the measure. Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Friendswood) backed that view.
In questioning, Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Friendswood) noted, “Our laws are not suggestions—Right? We want them enforced because we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Middleton stressed the amendment was meant to ensure enforcement of existing laws, not to create new liabilities.
“Proposition S allows citizens to ensure our laws and ordinances, especially those that keep families safe and stop crime, are enforced,” Middleton added. “All government exists with the consent of the people, and all government has its powers granted to it by the people. One of the best ways to hold government accountable for arbitrarily ignoring or not enforcing the rule of law is to allow a citizen right of enforcement. SB 2299 undoes this and undoes the will of the voters.”
During questioning, Blackmon admitted the city gave little time to public education before the election: “We put it on the ballot in August, so the campaigns and the education of it got off to a late start,” adding, “The former mayors jumped in maybe mid-September–first of October.”
Still, 358,799 Dallas voters turned out, with the proposition passing by a 10-point margin.
Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), who chairs the committee, emphasized the legitimacy of the public vote.
In a statement to The Dallas Express after the hearing, Bettencourt said, “Clearly the hearing established that this was a proposition the public debated, voted on, and passed it by 10 points: 54 (yes)-45(no). I asked both parties that were there if they felt like the public knew what they were voting on, and they both answered yes.”
SB 2299, filed on March 11, has yet to advance beyond the committee. If passed, it would take effect on September 1, effectively overturning a public mandate and restoring blanket legal immunity to the very government officials voters tried to hold accountable.
“SB 2299 overturns the will of Dallas voters. Period,” Middleton told The Dallas Express after the hearing.