Supreme Court of Texas 

══════════

No. 21-0693 

══════════

In re Cleo Petricek, 

Relator

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

═══════════════════════════════════════

JUSTICE HUDDLE delivered the opinion of the Court. 

A group of voters in the City of Austin petitioned the Austin City 

Council for a proposed ordinance that, according to the petition, would 

establish minimum standards for the Austin Police Department “to 

enhance public safety and police oversight, transparency and 

accountability.” Rather than adopt the proposed ordinance, the City 

Council chose to place it before the voters for approval at the next 

general election. And rather than use the caption set forth in the 

petition as the ballot language, the City Council prepared and approved 

its own description of the ordinance to be used on the ballot. Because 

that language differed materially from the caption in the petition, 

Relator Cleo Petricek, an Austin voter and one of the signers of the 
2 

petition, brought this mandamus proceeding challenging the City 

Council’s chosen ballot language.1

We conclude Relator is entitled to relief, in part. While we agree 

with Relator’s contention that the Austin City Charter requires the City 

to place the petitioned caption on the ballot verbatim if it complies with 

the law, we recognize that the City retains discretion to modify that 

caption if the City determines the caption does not. Here, we conclude 

the City correctly determined that the caption’s omission of the 

ordinance’s financial impact amounted to a violation of state law, 

requiring that the caption be modified. But we also conclude that the 

City Charter forbids the remainder of the City’s revisions to the 

petitioned caption, because those revisions were not necessary to bring 

the petitioned caption into compliance with the law. 

I 

Over 25,000 registered voters in the City of Austin (including 

Relator) signed a petition seeking adoption of a citizen-initiated 

ordinance in response to the Austin City Council’s adoption of a budget 

the petitioners claim “drastically defunded” the Austin Police 

Department, reportedly causing the cutting of 180 officer positions and 

the delay of four cadet classes. The petition includes the following 

caption for the proposed ordinance: 

A PETITIONED ORDINANCE TO ENHANCE PUBLIC 

SAFETY AND POLICE OVERSIGHT, TRANSPARENCY 

AND ACCOUNTABILITY BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER 

2-16 TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE 

1 Relator’s mandamus petition names the City of Austin and the Austin 

City Council as respondents. For convenience, we will refer to respondents 

collectively as the City. 
3 

POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECT RESIDENTS AND 

VISITORS TO AUSTIN, AND PRESCRIBING MINIMAL 

REQUIREMENTS FOR ACHIEVING THE SAME 

According to the petition, the City of Austin reduced the budget for the 

Austin Police Department for 2020–21 at a time when City residents 

and visitors are dissatisfied with public safety. The proposed ordinance 

would adopt a new Chapter 2-16 to the Austin City Code, consisting of 

three sections: “Minimum Standards and Resources,” “Representative 

Community Policing,” and “Coordination of Oversight.” The proposed 

ordinance states that it “will require the City Council to adopt an 

adequate level of police funding, staffing, and training and enhance 

police oversight.” Among other things, the proposed ordinance requires 

the City to employ a minimum ratio of two sworn police officers to every 

one thousand residents. It also requires the City to enroll at least three 

full-term cadet classes until such time as the department’s staffing 

levels return to the levels prescribed in the 2019–20 city budget. 

The initiative petition was filed with the Austin City Clerk on 

July 19, 2021. On August 3, the Clerk certified that the petition had 

more than 20,000 signatures of valid voters. Under the Austin City 

Charter, the City then had the choice of either passing the proposed 

ordinance without amendment or ordering an election on the ordinance 

on the next allowable election date. AUSTIN CHARTER art. IV, § 4. On 

August 11, the City ordered that a city election be held on November 2, 

2021, to submit the proposed ordinance to the voters. The City approved 

the following language to be submitted on the ballot: 

Proposition A: Shall an ordinance be approved that, at 

an estimated cost of $271.5 million - $598.8 million over 
4 

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? 

Relator simultaneously sought mandamus relief in the Third 

Court of Appeals and this Court, requesting an order compelling the City 

to replace this ballot language with the caption of the petitioned 

ordinance. Relator argues the Austin City Charter mandates that the 

caption of a voter-initiated ordinance be used as the language on the 

ballot. In the alternative, Relator argues the ballot language approved 

by the City is deficient in several respects and must be modified. 

The court of appeals denied relief without a substantive opinion. 

The City filed a response to the mandamus petition in this Court, which 

we have considered along with the parties’ filings in the court of appeals. 

II 

This Court has jurisdiction to “issue a writ of mandamus to 

compel the performance of any duty imposed by law in connection with 

the holding of an election.” TEX. ELEC. CODE § 273.061. Mandamus 

relief is appropriate if the relator establishes a clear abuse of discretion 

for which there is no adequate appellate remedy. In re AutoNation, Inc., 

228 S.W.3d 663, 667 (Tex. 2007). Voters who sign an initiative petition 

have standing to seek mandamus relief against the city council if they 

can establish the elements for such relief. In re Williams, 470 S.W.3d 

819, 821 (Tex. 2015). If the ballot can be corrected before the election, a 
5 

post-election contest is an inadequate remedy for mandamus purposes. 

Id. at 823. 

Relator first argues the City Charter imposes a duty on the City 

to use the caption of the proposed ordinance as the ballot language, 

without modification. Relying on article IV of the City Charter, which 

reserves to the people of Austin the power of direct legislation, Relator 

argues the City has no discretion to craft ballot language for a petitioninitiated ordinance with a caption, and that any modification of the 

petitioned caption violates the City’s ministerial duty under article IV, 

section 5 to place the petitioned caption on the ballot verbatim. The City 

responds that the City Charter does not automatically bind the City to 

place on the ballot whatever caption is included with a petitioned 

ordinance. Instead, the City contends section 52.072(a) of the Election 

Code “gives the job of crafting Proposition A’s language to the city 

council.”2 

We conclude that the City Charter requires the City to place the 

petitioned caption on the ballot verbatim if the caption complies with 

applicable law, including the common-law standard for ballot language 

set forth in Dacus v. Parker, 466 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex. 2015). But we 

also conclude that when the petitioned caption falls short of that 

2 In In re Durnin, 619 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. 2021), another challenge to 

ballot language chosen by the Austin City Council for a petition-initiated 

ordinance, the parties presented similar arguments regarding the 

interpretation and effect of the Austin City Charter. See id. at 252–53. Due 

to the expedited nature of that proceeding, and because we otherwise granted 

relief to the relators, we declined at that time to resolve the merits of this 

dispute. Id. at 253. We now answer the question we expressly left open in 

Durnin. 
6 

standard, the City has limited discretion to revise the caption to the 

extent necessary to bring it into compliance. Here, the petitioned 

caption fell short of the Dacus standard because it included no mention 

of the proposed ordinance’s cost, and the City thus had authority to 

remedy that omission. But the City did not have carte blanche to rewrite 

the petitioned caption wholesale, and it abused its discretion by doing 

so. 

Article IV of the Austin City Charter expressly reserves to the 

people of the City “the power of direct legislation by initiative.” AUSTIN 

CHARTER art. IV, § 1. The City Charter allows qualified voters to submit 

by petition an ordinance for adoption by the City.3 Once a petition is 

certified by the city clerk to be sufficient, the City may either (1) pass 

the initiated ordinance without amendment, or (2) order an election and 

submit the ordinance to a city-wide vote on the next allowable election 

date. Id. art. IV, § 4. 

Section 5 of article IV states: “The ballot used in voting upon an 

initiated or referred ordinance shall state the caption of the ordinance 

and below the caption shall set forth on separate lines the words, ‘For 

the Ordinance’ and ‘Against the Ordinance.’” Id. art. IV, § 5. According 

to Relator, this language creates a nondiscretionary ministerial duty on 

the City to use the caption of the petitioned ordinance as the ballot 

language. 

3 The City Charter does not, however, allow for petition-initiated 

ordinances that are “in conflict with this Charter, the state constitution, or the 

state laws” or ordinances “appropriating money or authorizing the levy of 

taxes.” AUSTIN CHARTER art. IV, § 1. The City does not contend that the 

proposed ordinance falls within any of these exceptions. 
7 

The form, content, and preparation of election ballots are 

governed by chapter 52 of the Texas Election Code. Section 52.072 

addresses propositions, which the Election Code defines as “the wording 

appearing on a ballot to identify a measure.” TEX. ELEC. CODE 

§ 1.005(15). “Measure” is defined by the Election Code as “a question or 

proposal submitted in an election for an expression of the voters’ will.” 

Id. § 1.005(12). 

Section 52.072 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by law, 

the authority ordering the election shall prescribe the wording of a 

proposition that is to appear on the ballot.” Id. § 52.072(a). Relator 

argues that the City Charter is a “law” that otherwise prescribes the 

wording that must appear on the ballot, and therefore the City must 

follow the City Charter and use the proposed ordinance’s caption as the 

ballot language. As a general matter, we agree. 

The Election Code defines “law” to mean “a constitution, statute, 

city charter, or city ordinance.” Id. § 1.005(10) (emphasis added). The 

City Charter article governing petition-initiated ordinances states that 

the ballot “shall state the caption of the ordinance.” AUSTIN CHARTER

art. IV, § 5. Although the Election Code does not define “caption,” we 

have described similar language that appears before the body of an 

ordinance and gives notice of the ordinance’s purpose as its caption. See

Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 397 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. 

1965) (“The purpose stated in the body of an act must conform to the 

notice-giving purpose stated in the caption . . . .”). The City 

acknowledged in the court of appeals that “[t]he caption is the 

proposition that briefly lays out the measure (or initiated ordinance).” 
8 

The City Clerk specifically identified this preliminary language as the 

“caption” when she certified the sufficiency of the initiated-ordinance 

petition. Accordingly, the City Charter’s requirement that the ballot 

“state the caption of the ordinance” is a “law” that “otherwise provide[s]” 

the prescribed wording for a proposition on the ballot. TEX. ELEC. CODE

§ 52.072(a); AUSTIN CHARTER art. IV, § 5. Thus, while Election Code 

section 52.072(a) provides the default rule that the authority ordering 

the election prescribes the ballot language, it allows for other law—here, 

article IV, section 5 of the City Charter—to vest that authority 

elsewhere. Section 5 plainly places that authority with the measure’s 

proponent. 

Relying on City of Galena Park v. Ponder, 503 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.), the City argues that Texas 

law places the responsibility for preparing ballot language on the 

authority ordering the election, not on the party petitioning for the 

election. Id. at 635 (citing TEX. ELEC. CODE § 52.072). However, there 

is no indication the city charter in that case contained language similar 

to that in the Austin City Charter, which expressly provides that the 

ballot used in voting on a voter-initiated ordinance “shall state the 

caption of the ordinance.” AUSTIN CHARTER art. IV, § 5. This specific 

provision in Austin’s City Charter affords the exception to the ballotlanguage authority that would otherwise be given to the City. See TEX.

ELEC. CODE § 52.072(a). 

The City is correct, however, that the City Charter does not 

compel the City to passively adopt as ballot language, verbatim, every 

caption of every ordinance that is proposed and certified. For an election 
9 

ordered by a city authority, the Election Code places the duty to prepare 

the official ballot on the city secretary.4 Id. § 52.002. The Texas 

Constitution forbids a city from passing any ordinance containing any 

provision inconsistent with the constitution or state law. TEX. CONST. 

art. XI, § 5. The City Charter expressly mandates that voters propose 

only ordinances that are “not in conflict with this Charter, the state 

constitution, or the state laws.” AUSTIN CHARTER art. IV, § 1. The 

language appearing on the ballot, regardless of its source, must 

“substantially submit[] the question . . . with such definiteness and 

certainty that the voters are not misled.” Dacus, 466 S.W.3d at 823 

(quoting Reynolds Land & Cattle Co. v. McCabe, 12 S.W. 165, 165 (Tex. 

1888)). In short, the ballot language must not be inconsistent with the 

law, and it “must identify the measure by its chief features, showing its 

character and purpose.” Id. at 825. 

We therefore conclude the City has the authority to determine 

whether the petitioned caption meets these standards. If it does, then 

the City Charter obligates the City to adopt the caption of the petitioninitiated ordinance as the ballot language. But in cases where the 

proposed caption does not comply with the law, the City may revise the 

caption to the extent necessary to bring it into compliance. 

Here, the City argues the caption for the petitioned ordinance is 

inconsistent with state law. We agree with the City in one respect. In 

Dacus, we recognized that ballot language may mislead the voters in 

either of two ways: “First, it may affirmatively misrepresent the 

4 The Election Code defines “city secretary” to include a city clerk. TEX.

ELEC. CODE § 1.005(1). 
10 

measure’s character and purpose or its chief features. Second, it may 

mislead the voters by omitting certain chief features that reflect its 

character and purpose.” Id. at 826. 

The City contends the caption is misleading because it contains 

no mention of the cost to the City to comply with the ordinance. Relator 

argues that reference to the cost of the ordinance is unnecessary and is 

itself misleading because the proposed ordinance is not an expenditure 

mandate or an appropriation ordinance. However, the petitioned 

ordinance makes clear that it is driven largely by concerns about the 

City’s budget priorities. Under the heading “Purpose,” the ordinance 

states that the City’s 2020–21 budget “drastically defunded the police 

department . . . . In addition to these budget reductions, more than $120 

million in funds were also set aside from police activities that could be 

ended or redirected.” This “Purpose” statement goes on to say that the 

proposed ordinance “will require the City Council to adopt an adequate 

level of police funding, staffing, and training and enhance police 

oversight” (emphasis added). 

In Dacus, residents of Houston challenged ballot language 

describing a Houston City Charter amendment that would create a 

dedicated drainage fund, which would be funded by charges imposed on 

properties that would benefit from the drainage system. Id. at 822. We 

held that the ballot language was misleading because it failed to 

mention the drainage charges: 

Because the ballot did not mention the charges, it fell short 

of identifying the measure for what it is—a funding 

mechanism and fiscal burden on benefitting property 

owners. Failing to identify something for what it is can be 

misleading, even for those presumed to be familiar with 
11 

it. . . . [W]hen the citizens must fund the measure out of 

their own pockets, this is a chief feature that should be on 

the ballot, and its omission was misleading. 

Id. at 826. 

We conclude that the cost to the City of the proposed ordinance is 

a chief feature that reflects the ordinance’s character and purpose. We 

do not hold that every ballot proposition must include language 

reflecting the measure’s cost impact. In this case, however, part of the 

stated purpose of the petitioned ordinance was to require the City to 

adopt an adequate level of funding for the requirements it would impose. 

The omission from the ballot language of any reference to that funding 

may mislead the voters. Accordingly, the City was correct in concluding 

that the ballot language should include a reference to the proposed 

ordinance’s cost. 

 The balance of the petitioned caption, however, should not have 

been modified. The City argues the caption was misleading for multiple 

reasons in addition to its failure to mention the proposal’s cost. In 

particular, the City argues the petitioned caption failed to comply with 

the Dacus standard because it did not mention certain details of the 

ordinance, such as the minimum police staffing levels, the minimum 

levels of community engagement, or the training mandates required by 

the proposed ordinance. We disagree. Ballot language “must capture 

the measure’s essence,” but “neither the entire measure nor its every 

detail need be on the ballot.” Id. at 825. The caption of the proposed 

ordinance states that the ordinance “add[s] 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 
12 

prescrib[es] minimal requirements for achieving the same.” The City 

does not contend this language affirmatively misrepresents the 

ordinance’s character and purpose or its chief features. The City argues 

the specific requirements this language omits are “key features,” but the 

City provides no explanation how those specific requirements “reflect 

[the ordinance’s] character and purpose” so that their omission may 

mislead the voters. See id. at 826. Nor are we persuaded the petitioned 

caption fails to capture the measure’s essence. 

Except for its omission of the potential cost of the ordinance, the 

caption of the petitioned ordinance is sufficient under the law to serve 

as the ballot language. Given the Austin City Charter’s express 

requirement that the caption of a petition-initiated ordinance be placed 

before the voters, the City has no discretion to adopt its own ballot 

language. It must use the petitioned caption, and it has discretion only 

to make specific changes as necessary to remedy inadequacies under the 

law. Here, the City abused its discretion by choosing to draft and use 

its own ballot language rather than using the petitioned caption. The 

ballot language should consist of the caption of the ordinance as set forth 

in the voter-initiated petition, supplemented by a description of the 

ordinance’s cost. 

The City’s proposed ballot language described the proposed 

ordinance as having “an estimated cost of $271.5 million - $598.8 million 

over five years.” Relator does not assert this estimate of the cost is 

inaccurate. Instead, Relator argues the City’s use of a five-year estimate 

exaggerates the cost and the City might in the future repeal or amend 

the ordinance so that those costs are not expended. As discussed above, 
13 

we agree with the City that the omission of any cost information can be 

misleading, and we cannot say that including the City’s cost estimate in 

the ballot language affirmatively misrepresents the ordinance’s 

character and purpose or its chief features so as to make it potentially 

misleading. See id. Accordingly, we conclude that the ballot language 

must consist of the petitioned ordinance’s caption followed by “at an 

estimated cost of $271.5 million - $598.8 million over five years.” 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, without hearing oral argument, see

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c), we conditionally grant mandamus relief and 

direct the Austin City Council to revise the ballot language for 

“Proposition A” as approved on August 11, 2021, consistent with this 

opinion. We are confident the City Council will comply, and the writ 

will issue only if it does not. 

 

 Rebeca A. Huddle 

 Justice 

OPINION DELIVERED: September 1, 2021