Opinion ID: 2808170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Ballot Language

Text: The parties dispute whether the ballot sufficiently described the charter amendment when it did not mention that drainage charges would be imposed.4 The Texas Election Code grants discretion to “the authority ordering the election [to] prescribe the wording of a proposition” unless otherwise provided by law. TEX . ELEC. CODE § 52.072(a). The “proposition” is “the wording appearing on a ballot to identify a measure,” and the “measure” is “a question or proposal submitted in an election for an expression of the voters’ will”—in this case, the proposed Charter amendment. See id. § 1.005(12), (15). The proposition must be printed “in the form of a single statement.” Id. § 52.072(b). The common law protects the integrity of the election with a minimum standard for the ballot language, but the parties disagree over what the standard requires. In 1888, we held that the proposition must “substantially submit[] the question . . . with such definiteness and certainty that the voters are not misled.” Reynolds Land & Cattle Co. v. McCabe, 12 S.W. 165, 165 (Tex. 1888).5 4 The Contestants’ briefing focuses on the drainage charges, mentioning another funding source imposed by the amendment— developer-impact fees— only in passing. The Contestants did not mention the developer-impact fees in the court of appeals. Accordingly, we decide this case on the basis of the drainage charges without considering whether the ballot should have mentioned the developer-impact fees. 5 The statement in Reynolds Land & Cattle Co. may have referred to the order calling the election rather than the text of the ballot. See 12 S.W . at 166. Since then, this standard has frequently been applied to the ballot language, and we do so today. See Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W .2d 259, 262 (Tex. 1999); City of McAllen v. McAllen Police Officers Union, 221 S.W .3d 885, 895 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 2007, pet. denied); Brown v. Blum, 9 S.W .3d 840, 847 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Bischoff v. City of Austin, 656 S.W .2d 209, 212 (Tex. App.— Austin 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Moore v. City of Corpus Christi, 542 S.W .2d 720, 723 (Tex. Civ. App.— Corpus 4 Beyond summarizing parties’ arguments about the standard in 1999, Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259, 262 (Tex. 1999), and commenting on the standard for ballot descriptions of state constitutional amendments in 1949, R.R. Comm’n v. Sterling Oil & Ref. Co., 218 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1949), we have not elaborated on the standard since then. In the meantime, the courts of appeals have articulated several additional rules. Some have said that the proposition should “constitute a fair portrayal of the chief features of the proposed law . . . in words of plain meaning, so that it can be understood by persons entitled to vote.”6 Under this standard, the ballot language “is sufficient if enough is printed on the ballot to identify the matter and show its character and purpose.”7 Some have said that the test of a description’s sufficiency is not the level of detail, but “whether from the ballot wording a voter of average intelligence can distinguish one proposition from another on the Christi 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Wright v. Bd. of Trs. of Tatum Indep. Sch. Dist., 520 S.W .2d 787, 792 (Tex. Civ. App.— Tyler 1975, writ dism’d); England v. McCoy, 269 S.W .2d 813, 815 (Tex. Civ. App.— Texarkana 1954, writ dism’d); Turner v. Lewie, 201 S.W .2d 86, 91 (Tex. Civ. App.— Fort W orth 1947, writ dism’d). 6 Turner, 201 S.W .2d at 91; see McAllen Police Officers Union, 221 S.W .3d at 895; Brown v. Blum, 9 S.W .3d at 848; Wright, 520 S.W .2d at 792. 7 Turner, 201 S.W .2d at 91; see In re Roof, No. 14-12-00258-CV, 2012 W L 1072038, at  (Tex.