what we were really voting for on the November 2018 ballot.
They claim that the vote for local control was a vote against casinos.
They didn’t tell us that what was on the ballot was different from what was actually in the ordinance.
They didn’t tell us that the ordinance’s requirement for the popular vote was a majority of all registered voters instead of a majority of those who vote, as is implied in the ballot.
They didn’t tell us that a local vote can’t restrict an authority that the constitution assigns to the County Judge.
Maybe they—and their lawyer—didn’t know.
They didn’t tell us that a local vote can’t restrict an authority that the constitution assigns to the Quorum Court.
Maybe they—and their lawyer—didn’t know.
And, now, a proposed ordinance that tries to unlawfully restrict those same responsibilities that the constitution assigns to the County Judge and the Quorum Court is up for a third and final reading after having been first proposed eleven months ago.