Equal rights ordinance foes sue mayor over ballot language

August 7, 2015 in News by RBN Staff

Equal rights ordinance opponents on Friday sued Mayor Annise Parker for the second time this week, challenging the ballot language that will go to voters in November.

At issue is whether the ballot item should ask voters if they favor repealing the law or not, or if they support implementing the law or not.

Source: Chron.com

Updated 1:42 pm, Friday, August 7, 2015
Jared Woodfill, left, David Welch, right, and others with a group seeking to repeal Houston's equal rights ordinance delivered boxes of signatures to the office of the Houston city secretary on July 3. Photo: Melissa Phillip, Staff / © 2014  Houston Chronicle

Jared Woodfill, left, David Welch, right, and others with a group seeking to repeal Houston’s equal rights ordinance delivered boxes of signatures to the office of the Houston city secretary on July 3. Photo: Melissa Phillip, Staff / © 2014 Houston Chronicle

City Council approved sending the equal rights ordinance to voters on Wednesday, under order from the Texas Supreme Court to either repeal the law or affirm it and place it on the November ballot.

Then, City Council tackled the ballot language. Attorney Andy Taylor, who represents the opponents, told City Council he believed City Charter does not allow for a suspended ordinance — the law has been tabled, under court order — to be voted on by repeal.

The current ballot language asks “shall the city of Houston repeal the Equal Rights Ordinance” — so a supporter of the law would vote against it, and an opponent would vote in favor.

  • “Shall the City of Houston repeal the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, Ord. No. 2014-530, which prohibits discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual’s sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy?”

In a press release, Taylor said the “Mayor decided to play games with the language in an effort to confuse voters on the effect of a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote.”

Taylor has submitted an emergency mandamus relief request to the Texas Supreme Court. In order to meet a late August deadline for ballot items, City Council has only one meeting left to re-vote on the language if ordered to do so.

Mayor Annise Parker did not respond to a request for comment but on the Houston Matters radio show Friday afternoon she said the lawsuit lacked merit. The language, she noted, was taken from a repeal referendum petition opponents submitted last summer.

“They apparently don’t trust the voters to figure out how to read ‘do you want to repeal, yes or no,'” Parker said.  “This is a frustrating situation for me but I know that we are following the law in the city of Houston.”

The equal rights ordinance bans discrimination based not just on sexual orientation and gender identity – the flash points for opponents – but also, as federal laws do, sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, disability, pregnancy and genetic information, as well as family, marital or military status.

The ordinance applies to businesses that serve the public, private employers, housing, city employment and city contracting. Religious institutions are exempt. Violators can be fined up to $5,000.

Conservative opponents submitted a petition to send the law to voters last summer, but city officials rejected it, saying it was riddled with errors and did not contain the needed 17,269 valid signatures from Houston residents. That triggered a lawsuit from opponents and the subsequent district court and Supreme Court rulings.

On Monday, opponents again filed suit against Parker, seeking unspecified court costs and other damages associated with the earlier lawsuit. Three pastors also are suing Parker for damages and legal costs incurred when the city, as part of a broad discovery request, issued subpoenas that included a demand for certain sermons. Those subpoenas eventually were pulled down amid significant backlash.