I read the opinion, and I understand where the Court is coming from for the most part; though, I agree that they were guided by outcome/ideology in granting the remedy.
I could see much of the same reasoning coming from the very liberal California Supreme Court because the overall intent is protect the power of referendum, which is strongly protected in states that have that right.
There are a couple of twists here. One, the Court states, “Disputed facts, however, prevent the Court from resolving issues in a mandamus proceeding.” Here, there are tons of disputed facts regarding what signatures are valid and whether there are enough valid signatures. The City Clerk said there were enough. The City Attorney and the District Court said, no, there were not enough.
So, what was the City Council to do? Under the Court’s reasoning, they had to go to court and get an injunction to stay the election pending a final non-appealable determination of the number of valid signatures. The Court concluded that the City Council did not do this, and that it had no authority to make that determination itself. This is probably correct under the statute.
Where the Court erred, in my view, is by granting the mandate petition given the strongly disputed facts, including a judicial determination that is on appeal that there were not enough signatures. They are assuming that the Clerk got it right, when there is substantial doubt that that is correct. I think that the better course would have been to stay implementation of the law until the question of the number of valid signatures could be finally resolved. If there are enough valid signatures, then the Court’s remedy is proper. If not, then it is not proper. Granting the mandate in light of this question, in my view, is a sidestepping of the judicial process to which the City is entitled. In granting this remedy in this manner, I agree that the Court was guided by ideology and outcome.
It would have been nice if the fundamentalists had followed the law and not forged signatures that were rightfully disqualified. But it seems playing fair and morality just go right out the window because “JEEEEZUS” says to discriminate and bash gays. Just more of “the-higher-the-hair-the closer-to God” Tea Party Taliban and their sharia state of Texas, making the rest of faithful Christians look bad. Where’s a good tornado on Waco and the rest of the conservative mouthbreathers when you need one?
Of course the U.S. Supremes have repeatedly held that the 14th Amendment gives us all equal protection and cities all around the country have passed similar nondiscrimition laws. The highest courts in the land have also held that you can vote regarding 14th Amendment minority rights. However, being that this is Texas, I guess this is another case that will work it’s way to the U.S. Supremes because, well, it Texas, and they just have a lot of dumb bigoted folks. My apologies to the good people that must bask in the light of the hateful idiots.
Conservatives Republicans have been swearing on a stack of Bibles that they aren’t conducting a War on Women and this hits the headlines? How dumb do they actually think women are?
So put it on the battle. I keep hearing that Texas’ cities aren’t as backward as the rest of the state. Show us. Of course the state is run by cretins, we know that. The point is to stand up to them in the face of this.
It would have been nice if TPM had given the judge’s reasoning and the text of the law the judge found objectionable. It would not be the first time TPM made a story out of nothing but carefully clipped facts.
I agree. It’s possible to compel the Houston City Council to submit the question to a vote, even if that Council is then required by law or it’s honest sense of the constitutionality of the ordnance or its repeal.
The writer of this TPM post has clearly mistaken a ruling on the legal process involved in a certain category of municipal voting, with a ruling on the constitutionality of the provision that ‘some folks’ [cough* big money white real estate interests* cough] would like to see gone by political pressure.
What’s with the tired “tex-ASS” here, as though Houston were not also Texas, populated by Texans, with a Texan mayor trying to do the right thing, elected by Texans hoping she’ll do just that? And, heads up: Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, Austin… all Texas.
I mean, I hate to ruin anyone’s vitriol with reason or nuance, but c’mon now.
I only hope that rather than trolling about “well, that’s Texas” , the progressives on this blog will help to make sure that HERO stands… this is the next proxy battle in the “religious freedom to discriminate” war. And if you don’t think that Huckabee and the rest of the crowd won’t be putting millions of dollars into a statement in the 4th largest city in the country, then you’re too cynical or naive.
Haven’t you learned by now that in “real life” and the minds of sheeple like these Texas morons, some people have to be more “equal” than others? That is the only way that these low grade idiots can justify their continued theft of oxygen, and their places in potions of “influence.” The only way these “anti-gay” hatemongers can “advance” themselves is my making themselves a constituency that believes that they are “more equal” than anyone else who is not one of them.
