Oh, Great! Austin's Voice Muzzled, Because Why Should People Have a Say?

Oh, Brother! Texas Judge Puts the Brakes on Austin's Charter Amendments

Well, knock me over with a feather! A Travis County judge has just slapped Austin with a temporary court order, freezing their plans to put 13 local charter amendments on the Nov. 5 ballot. Yes, you read that right—just weeks away from crucial voting deadlines!

The order, issued by state District Judge Daniella DeSeta Lyttle, is set to expire on Sept. 5. But don't worry, there's a full court hearing scheduled for Aug. 29 at 9 a.m.—because why not add a little more drama to the mix?

The whole shebang started with a lawsuit filed by the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental nonprofit, along with its executive director Bill Bunch and former staff attorney Joe Riddell. The lawsuit claims that the city violated the Texas Open Meetings Act when it rushed those amendments onto the ballot. Attorney Bill Aleshire, a former Travis County judge, is representing them—talk about a reunion special!

The lawsuit was filed on the very last day Texas municipalities could order an election because apparently, deadlines are just suggestions.

The crux of the matter? The city council lumped all the proposed amendments into one agenda item at a hearing last Wednesday, limiting public participation and notice. Because, you know, democracy is all about speed-reading and multiple-choice questions.

DeSeta Lyttle agreed, saying the council "did not provide adequate notice" of its Aug. 14 meeting. She added, "The court further finds that plaintiffs will likely suffer irreparable injury because, with the imminent deadlines to prepare ballots for a November 5, 2024 election, the ballots may be prepared and mailed before plaintiff's claims can be adjudicated in the District Court." Translation? "Y'all done goofed."

Aleshire, speaking to the American-Statesman after the hearing, summed it up perfectly: "The judge said everything that needs to be said. If they proceeded with the election, it would be illegal because they violated the Open Meetings Act in calling it."

Meanwhile, a city of Austin spokesperson was like, "No comment," while Clark Richards, the city's attorney, tried to convince the judge that everything was hunky-dory and meeting those deadlines was super important. Except, you know, those deadlines are now about as achievable as finding a unicorn in a field of rainbows.

So, there you have it. Austin's charter amendments are on ice, and we’re all just sitting back, waiting for the next episode of this political soap opera to unfold. Stay tuned!