IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00263-CV

IN RE LOUIS F. BOUSE

Original Proceeding

O P I N I O N

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 
In re Bouse Page 2

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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 

 

1 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.
In re Bouse Page 7

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]