Confusion surrounds a sweeping law aimed at stopping Texas cities from adopting progressive policies three years after state lawmakers passed it, supporters and critics said Thursday.
The 2023 law, known as the “Death Star” bill, made it illegal for cities and counties to enact local ordinances that go further than certain broad areas of state law. Texas Republicans including Gov. Greg Abbott and business groups long argued the law was needed to undo a “patchwork” of local rules they said made it hard to do business in Texas and to rein in progressive policies in urban cities. Critics including local officials argued the law was overly broad and vague while wiping out key protections like water breaks for construction workers, payday lending ordinances and noise regulations.
Today, it remains unclear just what local rules and regulations are out-of-bounds under the law, supporters and detractors told members of the Texas House Joint Committee on Government Oversight Thursday. Still, the law has had a chilling effect on cities, who might not pursue certain ordinances for fear that they could draw a lawsuit. At the same time, the law’s proponents worry that cities aren’t proactively striking ordinances from its books that could violate the law — and that outside of individual lawsuits brought by residents, there’s no way to make sure they’re following the law.
Some Republican lawmakers in the hearing floated enhancing the law to hold cities more accountable, including giving the attorney general more power to go after the law’s violators — an idea that died when legislators met last year.
James Quintero, policy director at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Taxpayer Protection Project, told lawmakers he asked several cities and counties what steps they had taken to comply with the law. Those cities and counties “came back and effectively implied that they had done nothing,” he said.
“Sometimes the Legislature can pass a law, but it doesn’t necessarily translate into local action,” Quintero said. “We don’t necessarily see cities and counties executing the law faithfully.”
Critics of the law argued there’s no evidence localities have openly violated the law. In fact, the law has had a chilling effect on cities, said Bill Longley, general counsel for the Texas Municipal League, a lobbying group that represents a majority of the state’s 1,200-plus cities. Some cities have changed or repealed ordinances, like ordinances that regulate car towing, to avoid costly legal fights, he said, while cities have sought to closely vet newly proposed ordinances to make sure they’re not running afoul of the law. But given the law’s broad scope, cities may rather not pass new ordinances to address urgent problems rather than risk a lawsuit.
“It sounds like there may be some frustration that cities haven’t just jumped in and started repealing ordinances left and right, but we’re talking about a standard that I think is not entirely clear,” Longley said.
Adding to the confusion is a certain amount of legal limbo. The law is in effect, but a legal fight initiated by Houston, El Paso and San Antonio challenging the law’s constitutionality hasn’t been settled. Meanwhile, a group of Dallas residents have sued that city to force it to repeal dozens of ordinances, including a slew of LGTBQ+ protections, that they allege violate the law. The outcome of that case is pending before the 15th Court of Appeals.
“Why should they do a good faith effort to follow a law they believe is unconstitutional?” said state Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood.
The law relies on private citizens to bring lawsuits, which can get tied up for years in appeals. State Rep. Mitch Little, R-Lewisville, floated the idea of allowing the Texas Attorney General to sue cities if they find evidence that suggests cities aren’t following the law — and fast-track those suits through the appeals process to arrive at a quick ruling. Residents and businesses, he noted, often don’t have the money to pay for long legal battles.
“I can’t imagine a car mechanic or an auto shop deciding that it was a good use of its capital to sue the city of Dallas over an ordinance,” Little said.
Lawmakers tossed around other ideas, like requiring cities to audit their ordinances to make sure they’re following the law or issuing financial penalties to cities and counties that violate it. Quintero noted a new state law that freezes cities’ property taxes if they don’t follow financial requirements set by the state as a potential model. Democratic lawmakers on the panel pushed back, arguing that cities and counties ultimately pass on those penalties to taxpayers.
The law is seen as the high-water mark in a years-long push by GOP state lawmakers to curb the rulemaking authority of the state’s urban areas, which often lean liberal.
State Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, D-Laredo, said he supported the law in part because few people vote in municipal elections, and it makes sense for state lawmakers, elected in higher turnout elections, to correct any perceived overreach. But he was skeptical that cities were openly violating the law.
Others argued that the state’s cities have diverse needs specific to their communities and shouldn’t be barred from meeting those needs.
“Why even have a city council?” said state Rep. Armando Walle, D-Houston. “Why even have a mayor if Austin is going to be the one that dictates what you do and can’t do?”
Disclosure: Texas Municipal League and Texas Public Policy Foundation have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
Source link