City of Houston v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.
Filing
78
OPINION on Summary Judgment. (Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, )
SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF TEXAS
U N ~ STATES DISTRICT COURT
D
3
City of Houston,
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
versus
American Traffic Solutions, Inc.,
Defendant.
Civil Action H - ~ o e ~ ~ ~ ~
5
§
§
Opinion on Summary Judgment
I.
Introduction.
T h e city of Houston held an election on a citizens' petition to amend its charter to
disallow the use of red-light cameras. It passed.
T h e charter itself and Texas law limit the ability of citizens to initiate changes to the
city's charter and ordinances. T h e nature of the proposition was to repeal a single ordinance
about techniques for enforcing traffic laws. It was done beyond the time limit in the charter for
repealing an ordinance. T h e charter is not amended by the election of November 2, 2010.
Enforcing traffic signals by cameras may be good policy, or it may be bad policy. This
decision is not about wisdom or preferences. T h e court simply must enforce the rules for
making policy choices by charter amendment or referendum.
2.
Background.
In 2004, Houston adopted an ordinance to use cameras to record cars running red*
lights.' It would use the photographs to collect penalties from the car owners. Texas allows
'Houston, Tex., Ordinance 04-1312, §
2
(Dec. 21, 2004).
cities to choose to use this technique to enforce traffic laws.' Two years later, the city hired
AmericanTraffic Solutions to install 70 cameras at intersections. Traffic would administer the
notices and collections, and the car owner would get a notice of civil violation - an invoice with
pictures showing the car running a red-light.
After the cameras had been used for four years, and citizen opposition had grown,
people organized and petitioned Houston for an election to amend its charter to disallow the
use of the cameras. T h e city called a special election on the proposition for November 2010,
coinciding with Texas's general election. Fifty-three percent of voters agreed that the cameras
should not be used. T h e city certified the results and amended its charter to exclude the use
of the red-light cameras.
Houston cancelled its contract with Traffic, instructing it to turn the cameras off and
to stop work on existing violations. That day, the city asked this court to declare what its
obligations are under the contract considering its new charter. Conversely, Traffic sued the city
saying that the charter amendment is invalid. T h e initial step is for the court to construe the
laws and apply them to the undisputed facts to determine the validity of the election.
3.
Direct Legislation.
T h e City of Houston is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. Houston is a
"home-rule" city and has permission to adopt its own rules and its own structure - within
limits.
While its origin is the section of the Texas Constitution that permits home-rule, the
city's direct organic law is its charter.
?
T h e city council or a petition from the people may
propose an amendment to the charter. It may be amended only by a vote of the people. W h e n
enough citizens have signed the petition to amend the charter, the city must submit it to a vote
at a special election or at the next municipal election.+
'Tex. Transp. Code 5 707.003 (Vernon 2007).
Tex. Const. art. 11, 5 5 (1912).
4Tex. Loc. Gov't § g.oo4(a) (Vernon 2007).
- 2 -
Ordinances control the ordinary operations of the city. They are adopted by the city
council, with the citizens having the opportunity to repeal them by petition and election. Since
1913, the charter has allowed citizens to petition for a referendum to repeal an ordinance. That
opportunity is limited to thirty days after the ordinance is enacted.
T h e city and Traffic disagree about the character of the ballot proposition. The
petitioners call it a charter amendment, and that is how the city treated it. Traffic says it is a
referendum targeted to repeal a specific ordinance. h e validity of the election depends on the
nature of the proposition in its character and effect - not on what it is labeled.
4.
Amendment or Referendum.
O n December
21,
2004, the city adopted the ordinance to use redplight cameras. The
citizens had 30 days - until January
20 - to
gather the signatures for a referendum to repeal it.
No one did.
Almost six years after its adoption, people started a petition drive for a referendum to
stop the city's use of red-light cameras. T h e petitioners did not call it a referendum
-
a
proposition to repeal an offending ordinance. T o evade the deadline on referendums, they called
it an amendment to the charter. Presented with this mis-labeling, the council supinely ignored
- over
the voices of some of its members
- their
responsibility and put the proposition to the
voters as an amendment to the charter.
T h e court's inquiry is limited to the character and effect of the election as ascertained
from an obdurate reality
A.
- not
from labels and press releases.5
Tbe Proposition and a Principle.
T h e ordinance allows the use of "photographic traffic signal enforcement systems in
accordance with Chapter 707 of the Texas Transportation C ~ d e . " ~
See Ives v. The C i y of College Station , No. 9-2877.8 j (D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2009) (final
judgment).
6
Houston, Tex., Traffic Ordinances ch. 45, art. XIX, 5 481 (2007).
-3-
T h e charter amendment disallows the use of "photographic signal enforcement systems
against the owner or operator of a vehicle operated in violation of a traffic control signal,
specified by Section 544.007(d) of the Texas Transportation Code . . ."'
Although the amendment is re-worded, the text of the proposition was taken directly
from the ordinance. T h e ordinance takes advantage of Chapter 707 - using cameras for red
lights - and the proposition refers to Section 544.007 of Chapter 544 - mandating stops at red
lights. If passed, the proposition could do nothing in its operation except repeal the ordinance.
T h e city says that the amendment is broader than the ordinance because it includes this
clause: " t o civilly, criminally, or administratively enforce any state law or city ordinance
[enforcing the laws about red lights]." Texas laws allows only civil enforcement by cameras;
criminal enforcement by cameras is illegal. Administrative enforcement is civil. Both the
ordinance and the amendment are about exactly the same thing.
T h e charter, like a constitution, structures the government; ordinances, like statutes,
make policy choices for their operation.
Charters create officers, specify election or
appointment, prohibit types and levels of taxation, and similar elemental things. Ordinances
set speed limits, reorganize departments, appropriate, and similar managerial things. Although
this distinction may blur at the edge, charters and ordinances are different and must be
distinguishable. T h e rules of Texas and Houston call for them to be treated differently.
Abraham Lincoln once asked: If Congress said that a goat's tail was a leg, how many legs
would a goat have? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it so.8
Given its effect, the proposition is a referendum.
'Houston, Tex., Charter, art. IX, 523
(2010)
8See Edward Josiah Stearns, Notes on Uncle Tom's Cabin 46 (I 8 53) ("Father," said one
of the rising generation to his paternal progenitor, "if I should call this cow's tail a leg, how
many legs would she have?" "Why five, to be sure." "Why, no, father; would calling it a leg
make it one?").
B.
Other Charter Changes.
Of the 34 charter amendments that have been proposed since 1980, most of them have
affected the city's structure. Eleven have been about offices and elections, nine on taxes, five on
council procedures, three on city employment, two on city contracts, two on rail lines, one on
zoning, and one on red-light cameras.
Only one amendment resembles the redelight referendum but not closely. Citizens
once sought to amend the charter to require equality of opportunity in city employment.
Although it did not pass, it would have had the effect of negating the several ordinances that
have created hiring preferences while reinforcing constitutional principles.
C.
Subject.
Traffic says that citizens may not use a referendum to repeal an ordinance that affects
public safety. T h e city charter says that it "shall have the power to enact and to enforce all
ordinances necessary to protect life, health, and property." This grant of authority cannot be
understood to exclude direct legislation by the people on these topics. Most ordinances carry
a stated purpose that is an empty, emotional generalization of the public interest. No ordinance
could be repealed if life, health, and property were excluded.
More technically, when the charter's semi-specification of the matters that only it may
address is exhausted, nothing remains. Using Traffic's logic, citizens may never submit a
referendum - direct legislation would not exist. T h e state and municipal rules creating the
opportunity for people to initiate legislation are not empty.g
D.
Contract.
Traffic also says that the referendum is invalid because it interferes with its contract
with the city. T h e city and its people have obligations under the contract, and they may decide
to use their power in a way that contradicts their contracts. If a government breaches a
contract, it must accept the consequences. Governments are not free to impair contracts, nor
gHouston, Tex., Charter, art. 11, 5 r(a) (amended 1 9 1 ~ )
may they meet their responsibilities by taking the property of others except by general taxation
or with compensation.'"
Because the election did not compel the city to stop the cameras, the next phase of this
case is to address whether the city will choose to withdraw its termination or to supply the
court with clauses in the contract that otherwise allow it to be canceled.
5.
Conclusion.
T h e proposition repealed an ordinance. Although the petitioners and city call it a
charter amendment, it is a referendum. Its whole process was years outside the time that the
rules of the city allow under these circumstances.
T h e deadline is short, but the people have an alternative, recurring way to repeal an
offending ordinance. Since the referendum deadline passed, the city has held three general
elections for the mayor and council. T h e same energy and organization that went into the
effort to repeal the ordinance may be applied in future elections as an alternative to a
referendum.
Those who favor repeal will react that this distinction is a legal technicality. In some
sense, all law is a technicality. It draws lines and defines categories. It is the antithesis of
passion and partiality. T h e Founders' definition of tyranny was arbitrary government. Timid
or over-enthusiastic city officials can destroy regular government as easily as a king.
Signed on June 17, 2011, at Houston, Texas.
-
Lynn N. Hughes
United States District Judge
'"U.S. Const. art. I,
5 10, cl. I ( 1 ~ 8 ~amend. V ( 1 ~ 9 1 ) .
);
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?