quote:

---

So why is Annise so worried about it going to a public vote? Sounds like she'll win in a landslide, and there was no reason to try and circumvent the rules.

---

and why is she so opposed to making the language clear, as outlined in the city's charter? I get her pushing a personal agenda. Her stance on the ballot language seems pretty shady, though.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So why is Annise so worried about it going to a public vote? Sounds like she'll win in a landslide, and there was no reason to try and circumvent the rules.

---

and why is she so opposed to making the language clear, as outlined in the city's charter? I get her pushing a personal agenda. Her stance on the ballot language seems pretty shady, though.

---

The language was consistent with the petitionand with the language that was used every other time the repeal process has been used in the past, including the 1985 non-discrimination ordinance repeal. SCOTX ordered the city to use a process that has not previously existed and is a departure from prior Texas election case law.

My question is how will this impact the mayor election?

quote:

---

My question is how will this impact the mayor election?

---

It forces mayoral candidates to talk about it. There is only one out of the seven real candidates who has taken a position against the ordinance. Five are solidly in favor of the ordinance and one refuses to take a position on it. You're going to have most of the mayoral field telling people to vote in favor of it.

My understanding is the referendum will be before the mayoral ballot instead of at the end, so there are going to be a lot of people who vote on this issue and walk out of the voting booth. I don't think it will have a significant impact on the mayor's race for that reason.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So why is Annise so worried about it going to a public vote? Sounds like she'll win in a landslide, and there was no reason to try and circumvent the rules.

---

and why is she so opposed to making the language clear, as outlined in the city's charter? I get her pushing a personal agenda. Her stance on the ballot language seems pretty shady, though.

---

The language was consistent with the petitionand with the language that was used every other time the repeal process has been used in the past, including the 1985 non-discrimination ordinance repeal. SCOTX ordered the city to use a process that has not previously existed and is a departure from prior Texas election case law.

---

So now you are citing history and past handling of the referendum process to explain not following the City Charter?

Too funny!

---

The language of the 1992 referendum was challenged in court and was ruled to be compliant with the City Charter. As I said - the SCOTX order is a departure from prior case law.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So why is Annise so worried about it going to a public vote? Sounds like she'll win in a landslide, and there was no reason to try and circumvent the rules.

---

and why is she so opposed to making the language clear, as outlined in the city's charter? I get her pushing a personal agenda. Her stance on the ballot language seems pretty shady, though.

---

The language was consistent with the petitionand with the language that was used every other time the repeal process has been used in the past, including the 1985 non-discrimination ordinance repeal. SCOTX ordered the city to use a process that has not previously existed and is a departure from prior Texas election case law.

---

So now you are citing history and past handling of the referendum process to explain not following the City Charter?

Too funny!

---

The language of the 1992 referendum was challenged in court and was ruled to be compliant with the City Charter. As I said - the SCOTX order is a departure from prior case law.

---

And the Mayor and City Attorney ordered a departure from prior handling of referendum petitions to begin with.

---

The jury and district court judge disagree with you, and that judicial process continues on.

I don't know, and I'm not going to drop a couple grand on the court record to get the answer from trial testimony.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't know, and I'm not going to drop a couple grand on the court record to get the answer from trial testimony.

---

What about the testimony of the city secretary?

---

You quoted my response, so I'm not sure what part of it you didn't understand. I did not attend the trial.

There may not have been involvement of the city attorney, but let's be honest - do you really think there would have been a need to forge signatures on an anti-gay petition in 1985? An anti-affirmative action petition in 1992?

I think that's where there lies a real difference in this petition - the petition was saturated with obvious forgeries that any person off the street could easily see. The petitioners fought for a jury trial, which was extremely unusual in an election law case. They got what they asked for and the jury smacked them down over the forgeries and other defects. They appealed and asked for an expedited appeal, and the 14th COA told them no. Now they are using a politically charged SCOTX and legal technicalities to get around their failings. You, as an attorney, should clearly see their actions have bad faith written all over them.

And again, anyone who think SCOTX isn't playing politics with this is kidding themselves. "We smacked down the evil lesbian mayor" is going to play VERY WELL to the base in next year's primary.

I see people post time and again, "If you're so confident you'll win, why not just put it on the ballot to begin with?" The answer to that question is first that it's not how the normal lawmaking process has worked in Houston for at least the last 102 years, and I don't think we should just put something on the ballot anytime someone submits a forged petition, regardless of the subject matter. I posed the question to a Council member who supports the petitioners, "If someone submits a forged petition to recall you or any other Council member, should we simply accept it at face value and put it to a vote?" He said, "I'm not going to answer that."

As for the "She certified it" argument, that comes down to how SCOTX parsed the position and definition of a single word in her memo, and there are clear differences in opinion from legal folks all over the place as to whether or not her memo constituted an outright certification, a conditional certification, or neither. Nonetheless, SCOTX chose to use a definition and interpretation of the first of those.

quote:

---

You, as an attorney, should clearly see their actions have bad faith written all over them.

---

Pretty sure he noted such on the previous page

quote:

---

Which really shows what a complete and utter **** storm this whole thing has been. People on both sides of this issue have shown themselves to be just as bad if not worse than the people they oppose on the issue.

---

i just find it funny that you seem adamant that everything from the pro ordinance side has been above board but the anti ordinance's actions have been in bad faith.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If your so sure of it winning, then why did the Mayor break city procedure to get it on the books? Seems she should have been fine with it going to a vote since her side will assuredly win...no problems here.

---

The ordinance was passed the exact same way every other ordinance gets passed - by a majority vote of City Council. There were 23 hours of public testimony at which 369 people testified, 301 (82%) of whom were in favor of the ordinance.

(edited to include exact numbers)

---

No, no it wasn't.

And quit saying "forged" signatures. You should be better than that, and trying to twist something into something it is not does not lend anybody to want to listen to your viewpoint.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If your so sure of it winning, then why did the Mayor break city procedure to get it on the books? Seems she should have been fine with it going to a vote since her side will assuredly win...no problems here.

---

The ordinance was passed the exact same way every other ordinance gets passed - by a majority vote of City Council. There were 23 hours of public testimony at which 369 people testified, 301 (82%) of whom were in favor of the ordinance.

(edited to include exact numbers)

---

No, no it wasn't.

And quit saying "forged" signatures. You should be better than that, and trying to twist something into something it is not does not lend anybody to want to listen to your viewpoint.

---

Yes, it was. Do you need to see the agendas and video of the City Council meeting? I can assure you that the ordinance was indeed placed on the agenda the same way every other ordinance is placed on the agenda, and it was voted on the same way every other ordinance gets voted on. You don't know much about how Houston's local government works, do you?

And if you have a problem with the assertion that many petitions were forged, you need to take that up with the jury because the jury determined they were forged.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You, as an attorney, should clearly see their actions have bad faith written all over them.

---

Pretty sure he noted such on the previous page

quote:

---

Which really shows what a complete and utter **** storm this whole thing has been. People on both sides of this issue have shown themselves to be just as bad if not worse than the people they oppose on the issue.

---

i just find it funny that you seem adamant that everything from the pro ordinance side has been above board but the anti ordinance's actions have been in bad faith.

---

This. Both sides of this fight have used absolutely deplorable and reprehensible tactics and in what will ultimately likely be a pointless and wasteful fight. As you said I think the ordinance will likely not be repealed.

---

RTT was threatening people on Twitter.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You, as an attorney, should clearly see their actions have bad faith written all over them.

---

Pretty sure he noted such on the previous page

quote:

---

Which really shows what a complete and utter **** storm this whole thing has been. People on both sides of this issue have shown themselves to be just as bad if not worse than the people they oppose on the issue.

---

i just find it funny that you seem adamant that everything from the pro ordinance side has been above board but the anti ordinance's actions have been in bad faith.

---

This. Both sides of this fight have used absolutely deplorable and reprehensible tactics and in what will ultimately likely be a pointless and wasteful fight. As you said I think the ordinance will likely not be repealed.

---

RTT was threatening people on Twitter.

---

Keep telling yourself that.

quote:

---

How do I vote on this thing? Never voted in a city election, but I will now.

---

Vote YES to repeal it.

quote:

---

Vote YES to repeal it.

---

I thought they are required to change it to a vote for or against the ordinance?

quote:

---

RTT was threatening people on twitter

---

I don't think he actually did any threatening but that whole "bad faith" thing he throws at the other side probably applies to what I recall happening.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How do I vote on this thing? Never voted in a city election, but I will now.

---

Vote YES to repeal it.

---

I mean where do I go? What day? Do I need to register somewhere or just show up?

Meeting Leader: Building A, are you for or against the motion to impeach?
A: What does that mean?
Leader: It means if you're for the motion, you're against Morty.
A: So why don't you say that?
Leader: Hey, I'm running the meeting.
A: If you think so.

If figuring out how to vote is too difficult for you, it's probably best you stay at home where it's safe for everyone.

Unless you are a Mexican national. Then it's very easy and RyanTheTemp's buddies will be happy to assist you.

quote:

---

If figuring out how to vote is too difficult for you, it's probably best you stay at home where it's safe for everyone.

Unless you are a Mexican national. Then it's very easy and RyanTheTemp's buddies will be happy to assist you.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Vote YES to repeal it.

---

I thought they are required to change it to a vote for or against the ordinance?

---

This is correct. The mayor begrudgingly agreed to follow the charter, which I find a bit shady.

A "YES" vote is a vote in favor of the ordinance and vice-versa.