#freedomwins

The city council was out of line. But don't let the facts get in the way RTT.

quote:

---

But what of the City Council's complaints of forgery, false oaths, and the like? Although
these issues were addressed at trial and are now pending before the court of appeals, we note that the City Secretary never claimed the referendum petition was plagued by forgery or perjury. Yet the City Council decided, of its own accord, not to act, disregarding the City Secretary's certification that the petition had enough signatures. The Charter, however, gives the City Council no discretion to reevaluate the petition; instead, it requires "immediate[]" action by the City Council following the City Secretary's certification. To give authority to the "council to make the ultimate determination of sufficiency of the petition would commit the decision to a body that could not be considered impartial." Howard, 589 S.W.2d at 750.9

If the City Council cannot independently evaluate the petition as a predicate to its ministerial duty to act, then it may not decide for itself that the petition is invalid and force the petition organizers to sue. Faced with the City Secretary's certification, the City Council had no discretion but to repeal the ordinance or proceed with the election process. If the City Council believed the City Secretary abused her discretion in certifying the petition or otherwise erred in her duties, it was nevertheless obligated to fulfill its duties under the Charter and thereafter seek any affirmative relief to which it might be entitled. But the City Council did not do so. Instead, it refused to fulfill its ministerial duty, forcing the petition organizers to file suit.

---

Wrong. It says the city council can't take it upon itself to decide that when there is a process in place.

Put it on the ballot, let the voters have the final say. I am all for this.

City council not following procedure is now a "technicality"

Ends justify the means I guess.

I didn't sign it, but i'll go ahead and put my name in for one of the "forgeries".

What's wrong with letting the voters decide this Ryan?

quote:

---

Well if a bunch of petition circulators hadn't forged thousands of signatures, it would have gone to a vote. You can thank those bad actors (who are all listed in the jury verdict) for the petition coming up short. - RTT

---

I think what you meant to say was if the City Council had followed procedure, it would have went to a vote.

quote:

---

There is a legal process in place to call an election. That process has existed in Houston for almost 102 years, and requires a petition that conforms with city and State laws. - RTT

---

Yes, and City Council did not follow it.

I acknowledge that you are closer to the situation than I am and I don't know about the signatures but I resent the way cc rammed this through. I want to be able to vote on this. I don't know how it will turn out, I've long since quit trying to forecast these things, but I want to have a voice in it.

I can't wait to vote against this bill

I'm still trying to figure out why this is/was necessary in the first place?

It seems like a overreach that will backfire.

quote:

---

quote:

---

City council not following procedure not counting forged petitions is now a "technicality"

---

FIFY

quote:

---

Ends justify the means I guess.

---

That's what the petitioners thought when they forged most of the petitions.

---

Except that most of the petitions weren't forged, and there was more than enough that were valid to meet the minimum number required for the City Secretary to validate the petition.

As far as the "forged" signatures, the article states that the majority of the signatures were valid, but on incorrect petition documents - as determined by Parker's attorney's, who could not have had any shred of impartiality when making their determination. Forged is not exactly the correct term in this application.

We all know what side you are on in this debate, but the fact of the matter is that people simply do not like the .gov or some small group of people mandating that the rest of us must acquiesce to your every demand, especially when it is like what this issue was about - and even you have to admit that this was not about anything other than pushing an agenda as far down the throat of those you really don't like while you thought you had the ability to do so.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

City council not following procedure not counting forged petitions is now a "technicality"

---

FIFY

quote:

---

Ends justify the means I guess.

---

That's what the petitioners thought when they forged most of the petitions.

---

Except that most of the petitions weren't forged, and there was more than enough that were valid to meet the minimum number required for the City Secretary to validate the petition.

As far as the "forged" signatures, the article states that the majority of the signatures were valid, but on incorrect petition documents - as determined by Parker's attorney's, who could not have had any shred of impartiality when making their determination. Forged is not exactly the correct term in this application.

We all know what side you are on in this debate, but the fact of the matter is that people simply do not like the .gov or some small group of people mandating that the rest of us must acquiesce to your every demand, especially when it is like what this issue was about - and even you have to admit that this was not about anything other than pushing an agenda as far down the throat of those you really don't like while you thought you had the ability to do so.

---

Whole pages of valid signatures were thrown out on a technicality. Now RTT can't accept that they got thrown back in on a technicality. Live by the technicality sword, die by the technicallity sword.

The bathroom truth is that hero lets a dood who says he is a chick use the ladies restroom without consequences

quote:

---

quote:

---

The bathroom truth is that hero lets a dood who says he is a chick use the ladies restroom without consequences

---

Here is the Houston bathroom ordinance, for your reference:

https://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/level3/COOR_CH28MIOFPR_ARTIINGE.html#COOR_CH28MIOFPR_ARTIINGE_S28-20ENREOPSE

quote:

---

Sec. 28-20. Entering restrooms of opposite sex.

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally enter any public restroom designated for the exclusive use of the sex opposite to such person's sex without the permission of the owner, tenant, manager, lessee or other person in charge of the premises, in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.

(Code 1968, 28-42.6; Ord. No. 72-904, 2, 6-2-72)

---

---

"in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance."

quote:

---

Caitlyn Jenner can use the womens restroom and only the womens restroom.

---

Then what is the "lie"?