Save Austin Now Unhappy (Surprise!) With Prop A Ballot Language

Austin Police Department HQ in Downtown Austin (Photo by John Anderson)

Former Travis County Judge Bill Aleshire has filed a lawsuit against the city of Austin on behalf of Save Austin Now, objecting to the ballot language City Council adopted on Aug. 11 for the GOP- and police­-backed citizen initiative to mandate minimum staffing levels at the Austin Police Depart­ment, along with minor policy changes added to make the proposal more palatable to moderate and progressive voters.

City-budget staff estimate the requirements of what is now Proposition A on the Nov. 2 ballot (also a statewide election on constitutional amendments) could cost between $54.3 million and $119.8 million annually, for the next five years. These cost estimates were added to the ballot language by Council over SAN's objections, and Aleshire's legal action was expected.

If approved by voters, Prop A would require APD employ a minimum of two police officers for every 1,000 residents ("2.0 staffing"). It also would mandate that patrol officers have 35% of their shifts available as "uncommitted time" (not responding to dispatched calls for service) to use, backers say, to engage with the communities they serve; this would also increase APD's staffing needs, likely to above the 2.0 level. The policy changes added as sweeteners include adding 40 hours of cadet training; new stipends for officers who are multilingual and who have consistent good conduct; and a requirement that certain city officials go through the department's Citizen Police Academy.

Aleshire's filing was made simultaneously in the 3rd Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas; he's seeking a ruling before Sept. 10 to allow time for revised language before mail ballots need to be printed. As he has for the backers of prior citizen initiatives who challenged their ballot language, Aleshire argues that once Council chose not to adopt the proposed ordinance outright, its only option under the city charter was to adopt without revision the "caption" used in the petition drive that qualified the initiative for the ballot (see side-by-side comparison at right).

Aleshire's filing argues that including the costs of Prop A in the ballot language is misleading, because the SAN ordinance does not require a budget allocation (which can't by law be done through a citizen initiative). Rather, the 2.0 and 35% mandates are policies that Council could choose to implement on its own timeline, or not at all. "If the Council refuses to take the voter-approved standards to heart," Aleshire wrote in the filing, "that will be a political issue between them and the voters, but the ordinance itself does not force any City Council expenditure." Aleshire also argues that Council's language omits the rest of SAN's proposed policy changes.

At the Aug. 11 meeting, Mayor Steve Adler offered a pre-buttal of Aleshire's anticipated case, noting that in the 70 years that the citizens' right to legislate has been part of the charter, he knew of no case where Council adopted the petition caption unchanged as its ballot language, either on its own or at a court's direction. "Even if that were the case," Adler said, "Council cannot take that step if the petition's caption is inconsistent with the requirements imposed upon us by state law." Later, Adler added that the language cannot "contain an affirmative misrepresentation of the ordinance" or "leave out key features of the initiated ordinance." The petition caption leaves out several key features, chief among them being the cost.

The city's Law Department agrees with Adler. "We believe the ballot language complies with state law in that it identifies the key features of the ordinance in a way that gives factual information to the voters," a spokesperson told the Chronicle in a statement.

Austin Chief Financial Officer Ed Van Eenoo laid out for Council how his team determined the cost range, taking into account projected population and wage growth; capital costs needed to build new police stations and training facilities to accommodate a larger police force; ongoing costs such as vehicles and equipment, along with the cost of the new stipends; and how the 35% uncommitted time mandate would put upward pressure on the 2.0 staffing ratio. A major difference between the low and high estimates (of $271.5 million to nearly $600 million over five years) is that at the low end, APD would likely continue to transfer officers away from specialized units to work patrol, which SAN and the Austin Police Association have decried over the past year.

The city financial team has already signaled the General Fund, which is supported by sales and property tax revenue and of which nearly a third already goes to APD each year, will begin to go into the red in fiscal year 2023, and that Council will need to either cut services or go to the voters repeatedly to raise its property tax rate above state-mandated revenue caps. If those deficits are increased by the cost of Prop A, those cuts or rate hikes will be steeper. According to Council Member Greg Casar's office, the city could add 400 firefighters, 400 parks and library staffers, and 210 emergency medics to its other short-staffed General Fund departments for less than the cost of Prop. A.

Prop. A Language: The Petition and the Ballot

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the SAN petition caption, and the ballot language adopted by City Council.

Petition Caption

A petitioned ordinance to enhance public safety and police oversight, transparency and accountability by adding a new chapter 2-16 to establish minimum standards for the police department to ensure effective public safety and protect residents and visitors to Austin, and prescribing minimal requirements for achieving the same.

Adopted Ballot Language

Proposition A: Shall an ordinance be approved that, at an estimated cost of $271.5 million – $598.8 million over five years, requires the City to employ at least 2 police officers per 1,000 residents at all times; requires at least 35% of patrol officer time be uncommitted time, otherwise known as community engagement time; requires additional financial incentives for certain officers; requires specific kinds of training for officers and certain public officials and their staffs; and requires there be at least three full-term cadet classes for the department until staffing levels reach a specific level.