In re Louis F. Bouse--Appeal from County Court of Brazos County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00263-CV
IN RE LOUIS F. BOUSE
Original Proceeding
OPINION
Relators Louis F. Bouse, Teri L. Gerst, Beth J. Becker, Marcy Halterman, and
Brian K. Alg seek a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents, the City Secretary for
the City of College Station and the City Council of College Station, to certify an
initiative petition and either approve the proposed ordinance or submit the ordinance
to the electorate. We deny the relief requested.
MANDAMUS REQUIREMENTS
“[A] court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance
of any duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of an election or a political
party convention, regardless of whether the person responsible for performing the duty
is a public officer.” TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 273.061 (Vernon 2010); see In re Jackson, 14
S.W.3d 843, 846 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, orig. proceeding). Because the question before
us involves an election matter, mandamus is the appropriate remedy. See In re Bailey,
975 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, orig. proceeding).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Wellborn is an unincorporated area that lies within the extraterritorial
jurisdiction of College Station. The residents of Wellborn requested the College Station
City Council’s consent to incorporate. The record does not indicate that consent was
received. Relators submitted an initiative petition and a proposed ordinance “granting
consent to the citizens of Wellborn, Texas, for an election on the proposition of the
incorporation of the Wellborn area as a municipality under the laws of Texas…”
Connie Hooks, the City Secretary, determined that the petition was insufficient.
In a memorandum, the City Attorney explained that: (1) each petition paper was not
accompanied by the affidavit of the circulator and did not contain the full text of the
proposed ordinance; (2) no plat was attached to the ordinance; (3) if a plat was shown to
the voters and was the same plat that had previously been submitted to the City
Council, the area fails to “meet the legal requirements for incorporation;” and (4) to
incorporate, Wellborn must follow the procedures outlined in section 42.041 of the
Local Government Code, which do not include an initiative petition.
Relators submitted an amended petition.
Hooks again concluded that the
petition was insufficient: (1) it is “[n]ot clear in all sworn affidavits that a complete
initiative ordinance was presented to voters;” (2) “[i]f an incomplete ordinance was
presented to the voters it is vague, ambiguous and invalid;” and (3) the concerns of the
In re Bouse
Page 2
City Attorney were not resolved. Hooks opined that no action was required by the City
Council.
ANALYSIS
“‘[T]he power of initiative and referendum…is the exercise by the people of a
power reserved to them, and not the exercise of a right granted,’ and [] ‘in order to
protect the people of the city in the exercise of this reserved legislative power, such
charter provisions should be liberally construed in favor of the power reserved.’” Glass
v. Smith, 244 S.W.2d 645, 648-49 (Tex. 1951) (quoting Taxpayers Ass’n. of Harris County v.
City of Houston, 129 Tex. 627, 105 S.W. 2d 655, 657 (1937)).
The College Station City Charter allows for the filing of an initiative petition,
except with regard to “zoning or rezoning property, appropriating money, authorizing
the issuance of bonds, or authorizing the levy of taxes.” COLLEGE STATION, TEX., CITY
CHARTER art. X, § 83. The City Secretary must “determine whether each paper of the
petition has a proper statement of the circulator and…is signed by a sufficient number
of qualified electors.” Id. § 86. If the petition is insufficient, an amended petition may
be filed. Id. § 87. If an amended petition is insufficient, the secretary “shall file his
certificate to that effect.” Id. No further action is required if the amended petition is
insufficient. Id. Once a petition is certified, the council must consider the petition. Id. §
89. If the proposed ordinance is not passed by the council, it must be submitted to the
electorate at either a regular or special election. Id. § 90.
Bouse contends that the amended petition cured the alleged defects, requiring
Hooks to certify the petition and requiring the City Council to either approve the
In re Bouse
Page 3
ordinance or submit the ordinance to the electorate.
The City responds that
incorporation is not a proper subject for an initiative petition. In an amicus brief, the
Texas Municipal League and Texas City Attorneys Association support the City’s
position.
According to Relators, the issue is whether the City failed to execute a
ministerial duty by improperly rejecting the petition and refusing to process the
initiative ordinance, not whether the initiative process is appropriate.
A governing body cannot defeat the right to an initiative election by refusing to
“perform purely ministerial duties on the ground that in [its] opinion the ordinance
would be invalid if adopted.” Glass, 244 S.W.2d at 648. However, mandamus may
issue only where the “subject matter of the proposed ordinance [is] legislative in
character” and has not been “withdrawn from the field in which the initiatory process is
operative.” Id. The subject matter of the proposed ordinance may be “withdrawn,
expressly or by necessary implication, by either the general laws or the city charter.” Id.
at 650. “Any rights conferred by or claimed under the provisions of a city charter,
including the right to an initiative election, are subordinate to the provisions of the
general law.” Id. at 649.
In this case, the City argues that section 42.041 of the Local Government Code
has withdrawn the subject matter of the proposed ordinance, incorporation, from the
field in which the initiatory process is operative.
Under section 42.041(a), “[a] municipality may not be incorporated in the
extraterritorial jurisdiction of an existing municipality unless the governing body of the
existing municipality gives its written consent by ordinance or resolution.” TEX. LOCAL
In re Bouse
Page 4
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 42.041(a) (Vernon 2008). If consent is refused, “a majority of the
qualified voters of the area of the proposed municipality and the owners of at least 50
percent of the land in the proposed municipality may petition the governing body to
annex the area.” Id. at § 42.041(b). The governing body’s failure to act within six
months constitutes consent to incorporation. See id. Consent is merely “authorization
to initiate incorporation proceedings.” Id. at § 42.041(c).
Relators argue that section 42.041(a) “only require[s] that consent come from the
governing body through an ordinance or resolution” and does not limit the “method for
providing that ordinance or resolution…to the sole discretion of the governing body
without input from its resident voters.” He maintains that, because the City refused to
acknowledge requests for consent to incorporate, Wellborn residents petitioned the City
for consent. In an amicus curiae brief supporting Relators’ position, the Law Offices of
Rusty Adams, PLLC argues that the City charter provides the initiative process as a
means for Wellborn to incorporate pursuant to section 42.041.
The First and Fourteenth Courts have addressed this issue in the context of
annexation and disannexation.
In Hitchcock v. Longmire, 572 S.W.2d 122 (Tex. Civ.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e), the trial court issued a writ of
mandamus directing the City of Hitchcock to repeal an annexation ordinance or call,
conduct, and canvass a referendum election. Hitchcock, 572 S.W.2d at 124. The First
Court held, “‘[T]he governing body of the city does not have the right to repeal an
annexation ordinance or to adopt a disannexation ordinance without following the
In re Bouse
Page 5
specific procedural requirements established in Art. 970a [the Municipal Annexation
Act]; a popular referendum would be subject to the same limitation.”1 Id. at 127.
In Vara v. Houston, 583 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979,
writ ref’d n.r.e.), Houston residents filed a petition to initiate a city ordinance to
disannex the Clear Lake City area. See Vara, 583 S.W.2d at 936. Although procedural
requirements had been met, the City refused to either pass the ordinance or submit the
proposed ordinance to the electorate. Id. at 937. The Fourteenth Court explained that
the Municipal Annexation Act provides procedural requirements for disannexation. Id.
at 938. Thus, the subject matter of the ordinance, disannexation, had been withdrawn
from the “field in which the initiatory process is operative.” Id.
Relators contend that the initiative ordinance does not involve annexation, but
merely seeks the City’s consent for an incorporation election or presentation of the
consent issue to the electorate.
However, like annexation and disannexation,
incorporation involves boundary issues that Chapter 42 has withdrawn from the field in
which the initiatory process is operative. See Hitchcock, 572 S.W.2d at 127; see also Vara,
583 S.W.2d at 938.
Relators are required to follow Chapter 42’s procedures for
incorporation of Wellborn.
Thus, even assuming that Relators met all procedural
The Legislature repealed Article 970a and codified the statute in Chapter 42 of the Local
Government Code. See Act of May 1, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 149, §§ 1, 49(1), 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 707,
741, 1306 (current version at TEX. LOCAL GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 42.001 et. seq. (Vernon 2008)). Like section
42.021, Article 970a provided that incorporation required the “written consent of the governing body.”
See Act of April 29, 1963, 58th Leg., R.S., ch. 160, 1963 Tex. Gen. Laws 447, 450-51, repealed by Act of May 1,
1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 149, §§ 1, 49(1), 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 707, 741, 1306 (current version at TEX. LOCAL
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 42.001 et. seq. (Vernon 2008)). If consent were not granted, “a majority of the resident
voters, if any, in the territory of such proposed city and the owners of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
land in such proposed city” could petition the governing body and request annexation. Id. The
governing body’s failure to act within six months resulted in “authorization for the incorporation.” Id.
Written consent or authorization only meant “authorization to initiate incorporation proceedings.” Id.
1
In re Bouse
Page 6
requirements for the initiative process, an initiative petition is not a procedure for
incorporation outlined in section 42.041. See TEX. LOCAL GOV’T CODE ANN. § 42.041.
Accordingly, we conclude that Respondents did not fail to perform a purely
ministerial duty by refusing to certify the initiative petition and approve the proposed
ordinance or submit the ordinance to the electorate.
Because Relators have not
established their right to mandamus relief, we deny their petition.
FELIPE REYNA
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
(Chief Justice Gray dissenting)
Writ denied
Opinion delivered and filed August 17, 2010
[OT06]
In re Bouse
Page 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
