Orders Houston to certify a repeal election where the petitions contained massive fraud.

By the way, if the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is repealed. Houston will lose

the hosting rights to the Super Bowl LI. The 2016 NCAA Final Four. Several Bowl Games.

No, the City Secretary had already certified that there were enough valid signatures. The Texas Supreme Court is simply ordering the Houston City Council to do what it was already legally obligated to do.

I think the issue was the signatures weren't turned in on time so that's why they were thrown out.

(07-24-2015 11:23 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Orders Houston to certify a repeal election where the petitions contained massive fraud.

By the way, if the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is repealed. Houston will lose

the hosting rights to the Super Bowl LI. The 2016 NCAA Final Four. Several Bowl Games.

We're the sporting events tied to the ordinance or is that speculation?

(07-24-2015 03:07 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:23 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Orders Houston to certify a repeal election where the petitions contained massive fraud.

By the way, if the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is repealed. Houston will lose

the hosting rights to the Super Bowl LI. The 2016 NCAA Final Four. Several Bowl Games.

We're the sporting events tied to the ordinance or is that speculation?

If it's coming from Tom, there's an extremely high probability he's speculating.

(07-24-2015 03:06 PM)slycat Wrote:  I think the issue was the signatures weren't turned in on time so that's why they were thrown out.

That might be part of it, but the City Attorney and the City Secretary disagreed about the validity of a bunch of signatures, which is being litigated in a separate action. But the City Secretary is the one required by law to certify the signatures, and that happened. Once that happened, the City Council was required by law to either repeal the original bill or put repeal petition on the ballot for the next election. The City Council refused, so the proponents of the repeal went to court to get a mandamus ordering the City Council to comply with its statutory duties. Because the separate litigation about the validity of the signatures will not be completed in time for the proposal to appear on the November ballot, as required by law, the Texas Supreme Court granted the request.

(07-24-2015 03:31 PM)jph12 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:06 PM)slycat Wrote:  I think the issue was the signatures weren't turned in on time so that's why they were thrown out.

That might be part of it, but the City Attorney and the City Secretary disagreed about the validity of a bunch of signatures, which is being litigated in a separate action. But the City Secretary is the one required by law to certify the signatures, and that happened. Once that happened, the City Council was required by law to either repeal the original bill or put repeal petition on the ballot for the next election. The City Council refused, so the proponents of the repeal went to court to get a mandamus ordering the City Council to comply with its statutory duties. Because the separate litigation about the validity of the signatures will not be completed in time for the proposal to appear on the November ballot, as required by law, the Texas Supreme Court granted the request.

Thanks for the clarification. I've caught bits and pieces of it on Houston Public Radio the last few months but that clears it up.

(07-24-2015 03:31 PM)jph12 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:06 PM)slycat Wrote:  I think the issue was the signatures weren't turned in on time so that's why they were thrown out.

That might be part of it, but the City Attorney and the City Secretary disagreed about the validity of a bunch of signatures, which is being litigated in a separate action. But the City Secretary is the one required by law to certify the signatures, and that happened. Once that happened, the City Council was required by law to either repeal the original bill or put repeal petition on the ballot for the next election. The City Council refused, so the proponents of the repeal went to court to get a mandamus ordering the City Council to comply with its statutory duties. Because the separate litigation about the validity of the signatures will not be completed in time for the proposal to appear on the November ballot, as required by law, the Texas Supreme Court granted the request.

No. The Texas Supreme Court, knowing full well that the petitions are made up substantially of ineligible signatures, decided that because they are anti-Gay, to allow out of town bigots to put hateful garbage on City ballots.

If the Supreme Court was demanding honest and fair treatment, they'd not demand it on the next ballot, or they would have not ruled when it was too late to challenge the obvious ballot fraud. This is a political ruling.

I thought we were past the gay thing and on to the polygamy debate.

(07-25-2015 10:14 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I thought we were past the gay thing and on to the polygamy debate.

Beastiality Debate is after That !

(07-26-2015 08:27 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 10:14 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I thought we were past the gay thing and on to the polygamy debate.

Beastiality Debate is after That !

And if you are a muslim