a day ago
Former Austin mayoral candidate sues over TRE ballot language
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A former Austin mayoral candidate is challenging the city over how it is presenting a tax rate election to voters in November.
Last week, Austin City Council approved its budget for next fiscal year and set a property tax rate, which is high enough that it triggers a tax rate election, or TRE, in November. Council members also approved an ordinance ordering that special election to be held on Nov. 4.
Austin signs off on $6B+ budget, triggering property tax rate election
If voters approve the new tax rate, the average homeowner's property tax bill will go up by a total of $302.14 annually.
The ordinance council members passed, ordering the TRE, lays out the rules of the election and what will appear on the ballot for voters. According to the ordinance, the TRE will be under Proposition Q on November's ballot, and it will say, 'this is a tax increase,' and describe what the money will go toward.
However, Jeffery Bowen, a candidate in the 2024 Austin mayoral race, filed a lawsuit this week claiming that the ballot language as described in the ordinance doesn't make it clear that the property tax hike would be recurring, and that the ballot's description of what taxpayers would get out of the increase is not clear enough.
Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, who defeated Bowen for the seat of city mayor last November, provided KXAN with the following statement:
'The City of Austin is confident the ballot language is appropriate and meets all legal requirements. We also have confidence in the court system and will respond in that venue.'
The full lawsuit can be viewed below.
Original Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus with App_1755530250Download
According to the ordinance, the ballot will be prepared to permit voting 'FOR' or 'AGAINST' Proposition Q, which will state the following:
CITY OF AUSTIN PROPOSITION QTHIS IS A TAX INCREASE
Approving the ad valorem tax rate of $0.574017 per $100 valuation in the City of Austin for the current year, a rate that is $0.05 higher per $100 valuation than the voter-approval tax rate of the City of Austin, for the purpose of funding or expanding programs intended to increase housing affordability and reduce homelessness; improve parks and recreation facilities and services; enhance public health services and public safety; ensure financial stability; and provide for other general fund maintenance and operation expenditures included in the fiscal year 2025 -2026 budget as approved or amended by City Council. Last year, the ad valorem tax rate in the City of Austin was $0.4776 per $100 valuation.
According to Bowen's lawsuit, Bowen hand-delivered a letter to the city council on Aug. 13 that outlined the deficiencies in the ballot language, and demanded that the council 'fulfill its nondiscretionary duty to adopt ballot language for the tax increase election that does not mislead voters about the tax increase proposition.'
The lawsuit alleged that, 'instead, the Austin City Council prescribed its own ballot language for the tax increase proposition that will grossly mislead voters and promote its passage.'
The first issue the lawsuit alleged was that city council violated Texas law that was set forth by the Texas Supreme Court in Dacus v. Parker (Tex. 2015) because the ballot language does not explain the 'purpose' of the tax increase in definite and clear terms.
The lawsuit specifically pointed out the phrase of the ballot that states, 'and provide for other general fund maintenance and operation expenditures included in the fiscal year 2025-2026budget as approved or amended by City Council,' alleging that several parts of the phrase 'mislead' voters.
It also said the ballot language fails to meet Dacus standards because 'several of the program descriptions are misleading for vagueness and non-neutral advocacy.'
The other issue the lawsuit alleged was that the ballot is also too vague to establish an enforceable 'contract with the voters,' because it does not describe exactly how the current council and future councils could spend the money.
The lawsuit said that because the tax increase would be a 'forever tax,' the ballot language should be 'definite and clear and become the foundation on which voters and taxpayers can rely—if the proposition passes—for how this huge tax increase will be spent, not only by this City Council but by all City Councils in the future.'
Bowen's suit, which was filed in the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, asks the court to 'issue a writ of mandamus ordering and compelling the Mayor and City Council of the City of Austin to promptly hold a validly called meeting of the Council to adopt ballot language that corrects each the deficiencies in the Council-adopted ballot language noted above so as to have accurate language on the November 4, 2025 ballot.'
In other words, Bowen is asking the court to force the mayor and city council to change the ballot language for the proposition.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
