See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen deny i ng r el i ef , t he c our t m ay han d do w n an opi ni on b ut 1 i s n o t r e q u i re d to d o s o .”) ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ). 

### NU M BER 13- 08- 0017 9-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG
I N R E : T I M O T H YR

YAN
On Peti tion for Wr it of M andamus M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Vela Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on 1 Throug h thi s o ri g ina l proceed ing , rela tor , Timothy Ry an, seek s to compel the C ity of El Campo to ei ther

rev oke three anne x ati on ordin ances or su bmitthem to a ci ty -w ide
v ote

. A ccording t o relato r, the City ’s fa ilure to take one of these tw o actio ns w ill result in an i nv ali d el ect ion to be hel d on Ma y 10, 2008, becau se v oters from thes e annex ed areas w il l be al low ed to v ote and a candi date from the annex ed ar ea w il l be al low ed to r un for an at- larg e s eat o n El C ampo’s C ity C ounci l. W e deny

the peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus for2

the reason s s tated herein

. I. Bac kg ro und The Ci ty of El C ampo, ac ti ng throug h i ts Ci ty C ounci l, i ss ued f o u r annex ati on ordin ances on D ecember 11, 2007. On Janua ry

10, 2008, pursuantto sec ti on 7. 03 of the El C ampo C ity

C har ter , c it iz ens of the C ity

fil ed three pet it ion s a sk ing the Ci ty C ounci l to
re cons ide r three of the annex ati on ordin ances , and , i f t he Ci ty Cou nci l chos e notto re peal them, to su b m it the ordin ances to a popul ar referendum v ote. Sec ti on 7. 03 of the Ci ty Cha rt er , ent it led “ Referendum,” prov ide s t hat: Qual ified v oters o f the C ity of El C ampo may

req uire tha t any

ordin ance or re sol uti on pas sed by

the Ci ty C ounci l be s ubmit ted t o the v oters of t he c ity for app rov al or disapp rov al, by submitt ing a p e t it ion for this purpo se w ithin thirty (30) days af

ter f inal pa ssage of

said ordina nce o r resolu tion, or w ithin thirty (30) days af

ter its pub lication . . . . T here upo n the City Council shall immedi atel y

recons ide r suc h ordina n ce or resol uti on and; i f it does not enti re ly repeal the same, shal l submi t it to popul ar v ote as prov ide d i n s ect ion 6.0 7 of this Charte r. Pendin g the holdin g of such elect ion, su ch ordina nce or resolutio n sha ll be su spen ded f rom ta king ef fect an d sha ll not later take eff ectunl ess a maj or ity of the q ual ified v oters v oti ng thereon atsu ch ele cti on shal l v ote i n fav or

thereof. Taki ng the posi ti on th at an nex ati on ordin ances w er e notsu bje ct to t he referendum prov is ion of the C ity

C har ter , t he C ity

C ounci l took

no a cti on on the t hr ee pet it ion s. Ry an and Ry an Ser

v ic es, Inc ., broug ht sui t ag ain st the Ci ty and Ci ty C ounci l in the 329th Judi ci al Di str ic t C our t of W har ton C ounty , Tex a s , s e e k ing dec larator y , i nju nct iv e, an d
m a n d a m u s re li e f

. T h e y a ll e ge d t h a t t h e E l Ca m p o Ci t y Ch a rt e r i s va li d u n d e r T e xa s la w, the p eti ti ons re g ardin g the ordin ances co mpli ed w it h the Cit y Char ter , and the annex ati on ordin ances w er e s uspen ded i n ac cordance w it h the C har ter

. In s hor

t, Ry a n and Ry an Ser v ic es, Inc . al leg ed th at t he referendum p ro v is ion i n t h e C h a rt er req uired th e C ity

to eit her repeal the ordin ances or ca ll a po pul ar

el ect ion on thei r v ali dity , and the ordin ancesQ uo war r ant o pr oceedi ngs a r e use d by t he St at e t o pr ot ect i t sel f and t he good oft he p ubl i c t hr ough 2 a g e n ts o f th e S ta te w h o c o n tro l th e p ro c e e d i n g s . Ci t y o f Ro c k wa ll

v. Vest er , 2 0 0 8 T e x . L E X IS 7 1 , *1 2 f.8 (T ex . 20 08 ).

A pp el l ant s hav e no t f i l ed a m ot i on f or expe di t ed co nsi der at i on o r any ot her m ot i on se eki ng a n 3 acc el era t ed b ri efi ng sch edul e i n t hi s app eal

. W e no t e t hat t he a ppel l ant s’ br i efwi l l not be due unt i l M ay 1, 2 0 0 8 , a n d a p p e l l e e s ’ b rie f w i l l b e d u e th i rty d a y s th e re a fte r. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 3 8 .6

. 3 w er e noteffect iv e unl ess approv ed by a maj or ity

of the q ual ified v oters a t an ele cti on. The Ci ty and Cou nci l members ans w ered th is su itand filed a pl ea to the j ur is dic ti on on g ro unds that Ry an and Ry an Ser v ic es, Inc . di d not hav e sta ndi ng to br ing sui t and the tr ial co urt, acc ordin g ly , l ack ed j ur is dic ti on. The Ci ty and Cou nci l all eg ed th at i ndi v idu al prop erty owners canno t challen ge irreg ularities i n a mu nicipality’s ann exation; rath er, such challen ges may be brought on ly throug h a q u o wa rranto p rocee ding. The trial court 2 g ra nted the p lea and dis mis sed Ry an and Ry an Serv ic es Inc. ’s cl aims w it hout pr eju dic e. Ry an a nd Ryan Servi ces, In c., ap pea led this orde r, w hich i s currently pen ding in this Court
as Cau se No. 13- 08- 00105- CV

. 3 On Apri l 8, 2008, R y an i ndi v idu all y fil ed th e i nst ant p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus and
mo t i o n fo r

e x p e d i t e d c o n s i dera t i o n a n d , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , e me rg e n c y t e mp o r a r

y re l i e f. T hatsame day, the Court requeste d a respo nse to relator's pet ition for w rit of man dam us, and suc h re spons e w as dul y filed on Apr il 16, 2008. Rel ator ’s moti on fo r expe dit ed
co n si derati on and, i n the al ter nati v e, emerg ency temporar

y reli ef, w as ordered to be
car ri ed w it h the ca se unti l further noti ce from thi s C our

t. Acc ordin g to the p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus, th e C it y o f El C ampo w il l hol d an ele cti on on Ma y

10, 2008, to, int er

al ia, fill th re e at- larg e s eats on i ts Ci ty C ounci l. TheR el at or beca m e a candi dat e f or C i t y C ounci l aft er t he t r i al cour t deni ed hi s pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on 4 i n t he u nder l y i ng p r oceedi ng. 4 candi dates for that ele cti on inc lud e re lat or , re spond ents Phi ll ip Spenrath an d Ke n neth 4 Ma rt in, w ho c ur re ntl y

se rv e on the C ity

C ounci l, and non- par

ti es Ji mmyR oppol o, O tha Ediso n, Hen ry

Dornak, Jr., an d Richard Young. Pursua nt to the City Charte r, only
re si dents of the C ity

may r un for a C ity

C ounci l seat , onl y

City resi dents m ay

vo te in t hat ele cti on, a nd th e three c andi dates w ho recei v e the mostv otes i n the el ect ion w il l be electe d to th e C it y

Council. Relato r conten ds tha t the ann exation ordin ance s are eff ect iv ely

su spend ed bec ause the C ity C ounci l faile d to re peal them or su bmitthem to po pu l ar v ot e, b utn ev er

th el es s , a c an di da te w ho res i de s i n th e an ne x ed a r ea , J i mmy Rop pol o, remains on t h e b a llo t as a candi date for C ity C ounci l in the M ay

10, 2008 ele cti on, a nd v oters from the annexe d a rea w il l be abl e to v ote i n tha t el ect ion

. Rel ator ask s t his C our

t t o c ompel re spond ents to follo w the prov is ion s in sec ti on 7.03 of t he C ity Cha rt er before the M ay

10, 2008, ele cti on.

II. J ur is dic ti on The Te xas Elect ion C ode g ra nts auth or ity to the S upreme C our t and the int er media te appell ate c our ts to i ss ue w ri ts of mandamus t o c ompel the p er formance of any duty i mposed by

l aw i n c onnec ti on w it h the hol din g of an el e ct ion or a po li ti cal par

ty conventio n, regardless of w het her the person r e s p o n sible for performin g the duty is a publ icoff ic er . See T EX . E LEC . C OD E A NN . § 2 7 3

. 0 6 1 ( V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). A c c o rd in gl y, we h a ve jurisdiction to conside r this petition for w rit of man dam us. III

. Standa rd of Rev iew In d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r a w r i t o f ma n d a mu s i s a p p ro p r i a t e , w e r e c o g niz e tha t5

mandamus re li ef is av ail abl e to cor re ct a c lea r abuse of dis creti on or the v iol ati on of a leg al duty w hen t here i s n o adeq uate remedy at law , such as by

appeal

. In re Dana Corp ., 138 S. W .3 d 2 9 8 , 30 1 (T e x. 20 0 4 ) (o rig. pro ce e d in g) (p e r cu ria m ) (ci ti n g W alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 8 33, 839 ( Tex . 199 2) ( or ig . proceed ing ))

. “I n det er mini ng w hether appeal i s a n adeq uate re medy , app ell ate c our ts cons ide r w hether

the benefits outw eig h the detr iment s of mandamus rev iew .” In re Pru de n t ia l In s . Co

. o f

A m. , 148 S .W .3d 1 24, 1 36 (Te x . 200 4). In t his ca se, our

j ur is dic ti on to i ss ue a writ o f mandamus i s c onfined t o c ompell ing the per formance of anyduty

i mposed by

law in connect ion w it h the holdi ng of an elec ti on. See T EX . E LEC . C OD E A NN . § 273.061 ; In re Arm endariz , 245 S.W .3d 92, 94 (Te x . App .–E l Paso 2008, or ig . proc e e d ing ). The i ss ue befor e us i s w hether the Cou nci l w as re q uired to
re v oke t h e o rd i n a n c e s o r s u b mi t t h e o rd i n a n c e s t o a c i t y - w i d e v o t e fo r a p p ro v al or dis approv al. IV. App licable La w and Analysis Acc ordin g to Ry an, s ect ion 7.03 o f the Ci ty C har ter req uires the C ounci l to ei ther
re v oke the annex ati on ordin ances or submi t t hem to a c ity -w ide v ote. R y an th us re q uest s this Court to direct the Coun cil to comp ly w ith the Charter and choo se on e of these optio ns. W e di sag re e w it h R y an’ s a rg uments and anal y si s. First, to the e xtent that Ry an’ s c hal len g e i s b ased on th e annex ati ons at i ss ue here in , the prop er

method to c hal len g e annex ati on procedu re s i s t hroug h q uo w ar ra nto, and ac cordin g ly , R y an l ack s s tandi ng to br ing thi s a cti on. Laid law W aste Systems (Dallas), In c . v . C it y o f Wil m er, 904 S.W .2d 6 56 ( Tex . 199 5) ; Alexa nde r Oil Co. v. City of Seg uin , 825 S.W .2 d 434, 436 (Tex .1991) ; City of Port Isab el v. Pinne ll , 1 6 1 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 3 (T e x.6

A p p . – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t

. ); see T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 66. 002 (c) (V er non 199 7) ( q uo w ar ra nto p ro ceedi ng s may be b ro ug ht by

the attor ney

g eneral or coun ty or district attorn ey on h is or her ow n mo tion o r at the re qu e s t o f an individual). Unl ess an a nnex ati on i s w hol ly v oid or the Leg is lat ur e has ex pr ess ly granted a pr iv ate r ig ht to c hal len g e the annex ati on i n s ome m anner , a q uo w ar ra nto proc eedi ng broug ht by the Stat e i s t he onlyproper means of attac ki ng a muni ci pal ity 's annex ati on i n c our t. City of Ro ck wall

v. H ughes , 5 1 Te x . S u p . J

. 3 4 9 , _ _ _ , 2 0 0 8 Te x . L E X I S 7 1 , * 2 5 ( Te x . J an. 2 5, 200 8). In this regard, w e no te th at th e record fails to indicat e tha t Ry an h as a legislativ ely g ra nted pr iv ate r ig ht t o c hal lenge t h e a n n e x ati on, o r that the C ity l ack ed i ss ue th e annex ati ons, or

thatthe annex ati ons w er e oth er w is e v oid

. Seco nd, w e cann ot conclude tha t the City or the City Coun cil has fa iled to pe rform any du ty im p o sed on th em by l aw . The la w

i s c lea r that annex ati on ordin ances are not subj ectto the referendum p ro v is ion s i n c ity ch arters. Var

a v . Cit y o f Houston, 583 S.W .2d 935, 938 (Tex . Ci v . App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 1979, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.) ; City of Hitchcock v. Lon gm ire , 572 S.W .2d 122, 127 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 197 8, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.) ; see also Save our Aqu ifer v. City of San An ton io , 237 F .Supp. 2d 721, 729 (W .D .Tex . 200 2) (“A n n e x ati on i ss ues ar e notsu bje ct to di re ct democracy v oti ng throug h referendum, but
ra ther are reser

v ed to represent a ti ve d e m o cra cy . . . .” ). Ac cordin g ly , t he C ity and Ci ty C o u n c i l w e r e n o tre q u i r e d t o re p e a l t h e a n n e x a t i o n o rd i n a n c e s o r put them to a
r efe r en du m. V. Con cl usi on T he Cou rt, having examine d an d f ully conside red the petitio n for w rit of man dam us,7

is of the o pin ion thatrela tor has not show n hi mse lf e n ti tled to the re li ef soug ht. Acc ordin g ly , t he pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus i s D EN IED

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. 8(a). Relato r’s motion for e x ped ited consid eratio n and , in the a lterna tiv e, em ergency tem pora ry relief , w hich w as previously ca rr ie d wi t h the case, is hereb y GRANTE D insofar as this Cou rthas g iv en th is proceed ing ex pedi ted c onsi derati on. PERC UR IAM

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 18t h day

of Apr il , 200 8.