.png)
Plaintiffs were successful in a suit to void and invalidate the Hays County Road Bond, which was “seeking to enjoin Hays County from taking actions to recognize the Hays County Commissioners Court vote to place the $439 million road bond package on the November 5, 2024 ballot as a lawful action to call the special election,” according to the original suit filed on October 21, 2024.
Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra stated that the court would need to make “critical decisions” on the possibility of an appeal. The county is waiting on final documentation from the courts before making a decision whether or not to move forward with the appeal.
“I am not inclined to appeal and spend another hundred thousand dollars only to find us at the exact same point we are now,” Becerra stated.
“However, I will reserve judgement until we receive all of the facts.”
Plaintiffs Leslie Carnes, Jim Camp, Cathay Ramsey and Gabrielle Moore claimed the Hays County Commissioners Court called the special road bond election in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act because “the posting language for the item neglected to disclose the purpose of the bond, the amount of the bond, or the proposed tax rate increase.”
Becerra said he respected the ruling issued and was “very disappointed” in the lack of transparency and public input associated with the road bond.
“Unfortunately, every chance I had to bring up transparency and input was shut down by the special interests on our court,” Becerra stated. “For now, my immediate concern is to find the resources necessary to address the most dire segments of our infrastructure and bring relief to so many of our residents who had faith in our ability to fund these vital road projects and improve our Community.”
The Hays County Republican Party stated that it “strongly supports truthful elections and full transparency in all election- related matters” and that the Hays County Road Bond election did not meet the standards that it expects; however, it said the issue was not one related to the election process but rather what it called the “administrative error” of the legal posting.
“We affirm that the reported violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act is not appropriate and should not be repeated. While we respect Judge Katherine Mauzy’s adherence to the law in her ruling to void the election results, we do not condone the actions or oversights that led to this situation. Section 241.004 of the Texas Election Code is intended to ensure impartiality by preventing judges from presiding over election contests in their own districts. We believe this principle is essential for maintaining public confidence,” the Hays County Republican Party stated. “It is important to clarify that the core issue here is an administrative error- specifically, an error that resulted in the voiding of a road bond and not a problem with the elections process itself. The HCRP will continue to work with our officials to strengthen oversight and prevent such errors in the future, ensuring that our elections remain fair, transparent, and trustworthy.”
Hays County Commissioner Walt Smith posted a statement about the loss of the suit to his Facebook page, calling it a “sad day indeed” for Hays County.
“A TRAVIS County District judge chose to ignore over 100 thousand of our citizens and side with Save Our Springs and nullify their votes, thus disenfranchising them and letting them know their choice didn’t matter. Our transportation bond, backed by over 55% of Hays County residents was brought down in a court case by a special interest group from Austin on a technicality by a judge not even in our area,” Smith stated. “Please remember this when we have new schools without adequate roads, when it takes you 40 minutes to get you little to class, or you hear of the next wreck that costs a life near your neighborhood. Thank Save Our Springs and Travis County. Let us make our own decisions in Hays County about what’s right and wrong and keep your decisions in your own neighborhood.”
The plaintiffs issued a statement on Thursday that they desired to “correct misinformation” about the lawsuit.
“His own Precinct 4 constituents overwhelmingly opposed his proposed roads — 86% of over 300 public comments were against the projects,” the plaintiffs stated. “The voters in his district didn’t want these roads.”
The plaintiffs stated that claims made that the lawsuit overturned the will of the voters are “false.”
“The election was voided — only the second time in Texas history this has occurred. This wasn’t taken lightly. The commissioners ignored state law designed to prevent backroom political dealings and protect citizens’ right to know. TOMA isn’t a ‘technicality’ as Commissioner Smith claims — it’s the law that ensures government transparency,” the plaintiffs stated. “We filed our lawsuit in Hays County. The Hays County lawyers chose to move the case to Travis County when they filed their Bond Validation Lawsuit there, and our TOMA lawsuit was consolidated into their lawsuit.”
Save Our Springs Alliance, who had plaintiffs represented in the lawsuit, stated that the bond package raised environmental and fiscal concerns for Hays County residents, emphasizing that “much of it was dedicated to new roads rather than the maintenance and repair of existing roads for current residents.”
“These new roads, which are typically the responsibility of developers, would effectively subsidize development in areas that are waterstarved, while paving over sensitive environmental areas, such as the extension of RM 150 southwest of Dripping Springs, the extension of Yarrington Road over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone in Western Kyle, and the extension of SH45 in Travis County, outside Hays County’s jurisdiction,” Save Our Springs Alliance stated. “Following the judge’s ruling, plaintiffs to the suit called on the Commissioners Court to establish a transparent public process, including the formation of a citizen bond advisory committee, to develop a new bond package. They advocate for a smaller, more focused proposal that prioritizes maintaining and repairing existing roads rather than constructing new ones in environmentally sensitive areas.”
The plaintiffs also stated reasons they felt the bond would be detrimental.
“The commissioners attempted to force environmentally destructive roads through the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone in western Hays County, breaking up family ranches through eminent domain to benefit developers. These roads would have doubled the county’s bond debt, raised property taxes, forced unwanted development, and threatened the drinking water supply for all of Hays County,” the plaintiffs stated. “The bond also included a misleading SH45 extension supposedly providing ‘better access to IH35’ — except it was to be built in Travis County without their consent, something Hays County has no legal authority to do.”
