The lawsuit to put the disincorporation of Reno on the ballot is headed toward a court hearing.
On Feb. 1, parties in this case are expected to have a hearing in the 415th District Court regarding the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement. A motion for summary judgment is defined by the American Bar Association’s website as “(asking) the court for a judgment on the merits of the case before the trial. It is properly made where there is no dispute about the facts and only a question of law needs to be decided.”
In this case, the plaintiffs are hopeful that the judge will review the evidence submitted and ensure that an election regarding the city’s disincorporation is called for in May.
“We wanted it on the ballot,” plaintiff Jennifer Vogle said. “It's not fair for them to take away our right to vote.”
In August, Reno residents submitted a petition to dissolve the city. The petitioners claimed they had more than the 400 signatures required to trigger an election.
However, an election to allow Reno residents to vote on whether the city should disincorporate was not ordered.
Since then, petitioners Eric Hunter, Joy Jenkins and Vogle filed a lawsuit against Mayor Sam White to order him to call for the election for disincorporation. The lawsuit claims that the reasons the city gave for invalidating signatures – which made the valid signatures drop below 400 – are illegitimate. The motion for summary judgement states that these reasons included:
- Residents moved from the city after signing the petition.
- The same person signed for all household members.
- Some signatures were illegible.
- Dates of birth on the petition weren’t the same as the voter roll.
- Questionable signature did not match initials.
Plaintiffs Hunter and Vogle said they are confident that they provided enough evidence to validate the petition signatures. The evidence they provided includes statements from petitioners backing up their signatures and information on petitions under Texas Election Code Chapter 277 from the Texas Secretary of State’s website.
In October, Reno City Council approved hiring a municipal law firm to represent the city in the legal case against White.
In response to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, White filed an answer in court to deny the allegations.
White’s answer also states that plaintiffs did not comply with the city’s ordinance that requires complaints to be addressed and refused by the city council before filing a lawsuit. The ordinance states, “No suit of any nature whatsoever shall be instituted or maintained against the city unless the plaintiff therein shall aver and prove that previous to the filing of the original petition the plaintiff applied to the city council for redress, satisfaction, compensation, or relief, as the case may be, and that the same was by vote of the city council refused.”
The plaintiffs responded to this claim in an amended document by saying that they did comply with the city’s ordinance because the petition to disincorporate was considered and rejected by the city council. The plaintiffs also claimed that they didn’t have to follow this city ordinance because they sued the mayor, not the city.
Hunter said he is happy to have the hearing coming up but is also disappointed that the issue had to escalate to this point.
“It's just disappointing that we have to go through this because Sam (White) is doing everything that he can to suppress the citizens’ right to vote on this,” he said.
It is unclear how much time the judge will take after the hearing to make a decision on this case.
Latest Stories
- Jeff Prince
- Updated
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.