Texas Supreme Court asked to decide fate of city election
Two rulings in city's favor don't stop annexation lawsuit
By SHANNON CRABTREE scrabtree@leader-news.com

The question of whether recent El Campo annexations should be put to a public vote has made it to the Texas Supreme Court - despite two rulings in the city's favor.

The continuation of the suit shouldn't have any effect on the May at-large City Council election, City Attorney Ronny Collins said Monday, despite the challenger's request that voting be put on hold.

El Campo business owner and City Council candidate Tim Ryan filed suit in January trying to force a public vote on Dec. 11 annexations, but the case was dismissed from the 329th District Court on the grounds he, as an individual, didn't have the right to challenge annexation. An appeal quickly followed.

Ryan's attorney Jason Ryan said Monday he is hoping for some sort of decision this week - before early voting gets under way.

"This is why we have a supreme court - to take a decision from the lower court and say whether that is really the law or is it not," Ryan said in a telephone interview with the Leader-News. "The supreme court will tell us once and for all what is the right answer here.

"If we are wrong, we are wrong, but it is not worth giving up at this point. The Corpus Christi Court ruled that if 100 people sign a petition it doesn't matter, the people have no voice," he added.

"I think that's wrong, but if that is the case, we can live with that decision, but I want to make sure the justices in Austin are (made aware)."

After presstime Friday, the city of El Campo received word the 13th District Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi justices had issued an option favoring the city.

"The issue before us is whether the council was required to revoke the ordinances or submit the ordinances to a city-wide vote for approval or disapproval," the April 18 ruling states.

Ryan had argued a provision in the city charter allowing for a petition to force a vote on any issue meant the public should have a right to vote on annexations.

The Appeals court first ruled Ryan did not have standing to bring the suit and then quashed the charter argument.

"We cannot conclude that the city or the city council has failed to perform any duty imposed on them by law," the justices wrote. "The law is clear that annexation ordinances are not subject to the referendum provisions in city charters."

Monday morning, city attorney Collins issued a press release on the court ruling.

"The city of El Campo has won," he said. "The court agreed with the city's argument that the only way for Ryan to challenge the annexation ordinance is by quo warranto proceeding (one brought by an authority on behalf of the people)."

At that point, it looked like the case might be over.

"This is good news for the city. Two courts have ruled that the Ryans are wrong on the lawsuit," he said in a telephone interview with the Leader-News. "This is really a non issue. I'd be surprised if the supreme court looks at it. But any time there is a question of voting, it attracts interest.'

With the first early ballots in the May election expected next week, there is no reason for El Campo voters to be concerned, Collins said.

"Everything should proceed as planned," he added.

Monday afternoon, the city attorney said he was "disappointed" upon learning of the Texas Supreme Court filing.

"They continue to fight what has always been a losing battle," he said. "They don't have a case. They don't have any Texas law to support them. I think the citizens ought to be offended by this."

Ryan says the fact his client Tim Ryan is a candidate in the election gives him firmer standing to file the suit.

Included in the argument is concern over the status of City Council candidate Jimmy Roppolo, who lives in the annexed area and can only run for office if the annexations are legal.

If annexations are improper, Ryan says, Roppolo can't run and those in annexed areas can't vote.

Both Collins and Ryan said they hoped for a quick ruling from the court - Collins "just so it removes any doubt" and Ryan because he argues the city election would be tainted if allowed to continue.

Because Ryan's suit isn't seeking any monetary award, the city's insurance doesn't cover any of the costs of the suit.

"This is a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars and it's frustrating," Collins said.

Filing the pleas for quick decisions actually saves dollars, Ryan said, adding the expense of several years worth of standard appeals pursuit would be costly.

The effort is "as cheap as possible to do what is in the best interest of everybody - to make sure there is a valid election. I think it is a win-win regardless of the outcome," Ryan said.