politics

$440M Hill Country Road Bond Voided After Judge Rules Open Meetings Violation

Judge rules Hays County violated Texas open meetings laws ahead of the election. County Judge Ruben Becerra says he is "not inclined to appeal."

Published June 24, 2025 at 11:58pm


A $440 million road bond that Hays County voters approved in November might now be roadkill after a district judge ruled that county officials violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by drawing too little attention to the bond on agendas for public meetings.

Catherine Mauzy, a state district judge in Travis County, ruled that the unanimous vote the Hays County Commissioners Court took on Aug. 13 to hold the bond election on Nov. 5 was "void," and the election — at which 55.7% of ballots were in favor of the bond measure — was thus "never lawfully ordered." She barred the county from taking any further action on the bond.

Four Hays County residents brought the lawsuit against the county on Oct. 21, about two weeks before the election, with Austin attorney Bill Aleshire — who served for 12 years as Travis County Judge in the 1980s and 1990s — serving as their lead counsel.

A second lawsuit — which was later consolidated with the first suit, so they are now two parts of the same case — was filed by Hays County in Travis County district court in March, seeking an expedited judgment allowing it to issue the bonds. That part of the lawsuit will likely be decided Wednesday, Aleshire said.

The Hays County Commissioners Court discussed whether to appeal the decision in a closed meeting on Tuesday. The court will not make a decision until a judgment has been rendered in both parts of the case, County Judge Ruben Becerra said in a text message.

"I am only 1 of 5 votes but I am not inclined to appeal," Becerra said, saying it would be a decision to "spend another hundred thousand dollars only to find us at the exact same point we are now."

He added that he was "very disappointed" in what he called a "lack of transparency and public input we had on this bond issue."

On Tuesday evening, Becerra suggested in a post on Facebook that the county might reconsider projects in the bond, such as an expansion of Texas 45 that would require cooperation with officials in Travis County. Officials with the city of Austin and Travis County have stated publicly that they do not support the project, he said.

Aleshire, who has long specialized in open meetings law, said it was the first time to his knowledge that a judge had invalidated a bond election in Texas because of an open meetings violation.

"It is a wonderful decision for transparency and openness in government, but it is also a warning that (Hays County elected officials) need an attitude adjustment about transparency," he said.

The Hays County residents who brought the suit pointed out that for three commissioners court meetings last summer — on July 2, Aug. 6 and Aug. 13 — a discussion item related to the road bond was listed in the "miscellaneous" section of the agenda rather than the "roads" section.

The agenda item for the bond measure for the Aug. 13 meeting neglected to disclose "the purpose of the bond, the amount of the bond or the proposed tax rate increase," the lawsuit states. That information does appear to have been included in an attachment to the item, which could be accessed by clicking a web link.

"Few people, outside the Commissioners Court and its road building advisors were aware that a road bond package for the November 2024 election was under consideration," the lawsuit states.

ALSO READ: Lawsuit accuses H-E-B of negligence in employee's drunk-driving crash.

The county proposed the bond measure as a means to expand its infrastructure to accommodate a tidal wave of new residents. The plans raised concerns from environmental activists who said that stormwater runoff and expanses of new impervious cover — or surfaces that water can't penetrate, such as roads and rooftops — from the new projects could pollute the county's already-strained groundwater supply.

Unlike prior county bond initiatives, the road bond was put on the ballot without a formal public input process or citizen advisory committee, the lawsuit alleges, depriving the public of opportunities to learn about the bond or offer input.

County voters were thus "left with only one option: to vote for the entire bond package which they had no voice in preparing or to vote no on the bond package even if it includes some projects that are needed and desired," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also accuses the county of placing an "unreasonable restriction on public testimony" by allowing members of the public only three minutes each to comment on the bond at public meetings.

The lawsuit was filed in Hays County, but ended up in state district court in Travis County after Hays County petitioned that court in March for an expedited judgment, under state law, allowing it to issue the road bonds.

Hays County argued in that filing that it had offered proper notice for all of its discussions of the road bond under the Texas Open Meetings Act. The bond was discussed "extensively" at the Aug. 13 meeting, the county said, with 29 county residents voicing their concerns.