On January 6, the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus in the first of two lawsuits over the Harris County Ellis-3 redistricting plan. The Ellis-3 plan completely flipped Precincts 3 and 4 while altering the boundaries of both. The likely end result will be a 4-1 Democratic supermajority in the next election. A supermajority would let commissioners shift flood-bond funds around at will.
Mandamus is a judicial order commanding another court or person to perform a specific duty. In this case, Commissioners Cagle, Ramsey and their supporters requested the court to order Lina Hidalgo to stop the Ellis-3 Plan from moving forward.
File photo of Harris County Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis who is at the center of this controversy.
Central Issue At Stake
The central issue in the case was whether 1.1 million people had their voting rights denied or delayed by the Ellis-3 plan. The Texas Supreme Court recognized the inevitable problem of preserving (or minimizing disruption to) voting rights in staggered elections when redistricting.
“To be abundantly clear, by denying the petition today, we do not dispute that the constitutional issue Relators raise is a serious question that warrants this Court’s full consideration when properly presented. We do not prejudge the outcome.“
Basis for Denial
However, in denying the writ of mandamus, the judges cited:
A delay in filing the initial appeal after the District Court dismissed the suit. Filing for the election had already begun. The judges said, “Avoidable delays, in particular, may be fatal to the courts’ ability to proceed at all.”
The need to describe “with precision how any relief will affect that election and the larger structure of our state’s election machinery.” And “…a party who asks a court to take action that could disrupt the election calendar after the election process has begun has the duty to explain the practical consequences…”
Regarding the second point, the Justices wrote, “Relators claim to be in possession of an alternative map that lawfully redraws precincts without excluding any voter from consecutive county-commissioner elections. This map was not presented to the commissioners court, the district court, the Respondents, or this Court, and it is unclear how this map could become law.”
Justices Blacklock and Young wrote in delivering the opinion of the Texas Supreme Court that, “Expedition and precision in requesting relief help ensure that courts can never be converted, willingly or otherwise, into a partisan tool for one side or the other. Those requirements reduce the incentives for partisan adversaries to lie in wait with lawsuits that create chaos. To be clear, we do not charge Relators here with any such intention. We simply note that the rules are demanding because such conduct would otherwise go undeterred.”
Sets No Blanket Precedent
“We emphasize that our inability to address the merits of this petition on the eve of the election—because of the timing and nature-of-relief problems discussed above does not by any means establish that there is never any judicial relief that could be given,” said the ruling.
The Justices then spent several pages exploring questions about how judicial interference would affect the machinery of an election already in progress. “To be abundantly clear, by denying the petition today, we do not dispute that the constitutional issue Relators raise is a serious question that warrants this Court’s full consideration when properly presented.” The Justices just didn’t feel there were enough specifics in this case to let them do so.
Not a Summary Judgement
Significantly, the Texas Supreme Court said, “We deny the petition for writ of mandamus, but we do not do so lightly or summarily. Our decision implies no endorsement, affirmation, or other view of the redrawn map of precincts challenged here. Nor do we suggest that mandamus would never be an appropriate vehicle to resolve this question or ones like it. Our narrow holding is that this mandamus petition, under the circumstances we describe below, cannot go forward under settled precedents that sharply limit judicial authority to intervene in ongoing elections.”
Second Lawsuit Still Pending in Lower Court
A second lawsuit by former commissioner Steve Radack is still pending in the Harris County 190th Civil Court. That suit alleges the Ellis-3 plan should be invalidated because it was sprung on people at the last minute without sufficient public notice. The Texas Open Meetings Act demands a minimum of 72 hours notice.
But the Ellis-3 plan was posted online only minutes before the meeting in which the plan was approved. In that meeting, 94 members of the public signed up to speak. Not one of them mentioned the Ellis-3 plan. The first mention of Ellis-3 in the transcript is when commissioners started debating plans.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ellis-1.jpg?fit=912%2C518&ssl=1518912adminadmin2022-01-07 13:08:532022-01-08 11:13:14Texas Supreme Court Denies Petition for Mandamus in Harris County Redistricting Lawsuit
Some say that mining sand from our rivers and flood plains is the price of progress.
Looking westat part of Hallett Mine Complex bisected by the West Fork of San Jacinto. Photographed 1/1/22.The pond in the middle foreground is part of another abandoned mine adjacent to Hallett.
Pros and Cons
Sand has its benefits. We need it to make concrete. And we need concrete to accommodate a growing population. And a growing population creates income for builders, tradesmen and other businesses.
But mining sand also has several downsides. It alters the environment on a large scale. Wildlife lose habitat. Erosion increases. The sediment can contribute to flooding by forming dams and reducing conveyance downstream. Water quality also suffers. These are global problems.
Out of Sight. Out of Time. Out of Mind.
Sand mining mostly takes place in floodplains along rivers. Because our terrain offers no elevated viewpoints, the only way to see the mines is from the air. So for the vast majority of people, they’re out of sight, out of mind and, as a consequence, we’re out of time. More than 20 square miles of sand mines already border the San Jacinto West Fork between I-45 and I-69.
The Hallett mine complex in Porter and an adjacent abandoned mine now stretch 3 miles north to south and 2 miles east to west. And Hallett is just one of several such complexes on the West Fork.
New Best Management Practices recently adopted by the TCEQ for sand mining will help in the future. But much damage has already been done.
Where Do We Go From Here?
It’s time to start a conversation about the price of progress. How do we restore this land to another useful purpose in the long run? And who should pay for that?
Looking south from farther west at the end of the pond mentioned above. Note outfall to river, top left. Also note recent repairs to Hallett dike, bottom right.
Looking east across abandoned mine complex to left of river, which flows from bottom to top. New Northpark Woods subdivision is in upper left.Part of Hallett mine is on right.
Satellite photo from 2020 courtesy of Google Earth showing Hallett and adjacent abandoned mines.
The Long-Term Question
What do you do with an area this large when miners finish?
Do the ponds turn into recreational amenities and parks? (Not when left like those in the third photo!)
Who will plant grass and trees?
What do you do with the old equipment?
How do you turn these areas into detention ponds?
Who maintains them? (Montgomery County doesn’t even have a flood control district.)
What happens to bordering neighborhoods if rivers decide to reroute themselves through the pits?
Lots of questions. Little consensus.
When you start out to create a detention pond, it’s easy to plan recreation around it. But when the primary goal is mining, the end result can be dangerous, i.e., banks that cave in after miners walk away or kids playing on abandoned equipment.
Abandoned dredge at abandoned Humble mine on north Houston Avenuehas been there since Harvey. Area is unfenced.
Rusting processing equipment left at same abandoned Humble minenear West Fork.This is between a driving range and a paintball park.
The new Best Management Practices do not require miners to post a performance bond that would ensure cleanup and conversion to a suitable post-mining use.
In some areas, city and county governments make arrangements with miners to take over abandoned mines. That seems like a decent idea to me. That may be the price of progress.
We need dialog on this issue – unless we’re willing to let private industry turn our rivers into eyesores.
Posted by Bob Rehak
1591 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20211231-DJI_0289.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-01-06 15:37:092022-01-06 15:50:13Price of Progress?
Former Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack filed a redistricting lawsuit on New Years Eve last week. This lawsuit comes hot on the heels of a previous lawsuit by Commissioners Jack Cagle, Tom Ramsey and their supporters. That lawsuit is now in the Texas Supreme Court. Here’s an overview of where both cases stand. The fate of flood mitigation in Harris County could hang in the balance.
File photo from 2021 of Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis whose redistricting plan sparked two lawsuits.
Radack Lawsuit Alleges Lack of Sufficient Public Notice
The Radack lawsuit alleges that County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia passed a redistricting plan without providing sufficient public notice.
Radack claims that constitutes a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA). TOMA requires that members of the public must have 72 hours notice of provisions being considered, but the Ellis-3 redistricting plan was posted on the day of the meeting in which it was approved. The public had virtually no advance notice of the plan, and thus, no opportunity to comment on it. People first learned of the plan when Ellis rolled it out in the meeting during which he, Garcia and Hidalgo approved it.
The lawsuit further alleges that:
Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia planned the surprise in advance.
Their plan makes it impossible for Jack Cagle to get re-elected.
It will give Democrats a 4-1 supermajority.
Failure to timely post notice of the plan invalidates the vote on it.
In violating TOMA, Lina Hidalgo overstepped her authority and therefore does not enjoy governmental immunity.
A supermajority would give Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia the power to shift flood-bond dollars around at will.
Radack filed his lawsuit on December 31st. The county clerk posted it on her website on Monday, January 3rd. The case landed in the 190th Court where Judge Beau Miller presides.
Hidalgo, Ellis and Christian Menafee, the County Attorney, issued public denials on Tuesday’s evening news. However, they have not yet filed a formal response to Radack’s lawsuit with the court.
Hidalgo Files Response to Cagle/Ramsey Suit Pending in Supreme Court
In that case, Hidalgo filed a 185-page response on December 30th to the plaintiffs’ charges. Hidalgo contends that:
The county did not violate voting rights because when you redistrict precincts with staggered terms, voting rights for some will always be delayed but not permanently denied.
The court has no way to evaluate whether Harris County went “way beyond” what was necessary to redistrict
Plaintiffs in this case also filed a request for an expedited ruling. To affect the next election without delaying it, a ruling would reportedly have to come sometime in January.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/5/2022
1590 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20210209-Screen-Shot-2021-02-09-at-5.16.24-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C669&ssl=16691200adminadmin2022-01-05 07:58:132022-01-08 11:01:20Former Commissioner Radack Files Second Redistricting Lawsuit; Hidalgo Responds to First
Texas Supreme Court Denies Petition for Mandamus in Harris County Redistricting Lawsuit
On January 6, the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus in the first of two lawsuits over the Harris County Ellis-3 redistricting plan. The Ellis-3 plan completely flipped Precincts 3 and 4 while altering the boundaries of both. The likely end result will be a 4-1 Democratic supermajority in the next election. A supermajority would let commissioners shift flood-bond funds around at will.
Mandamus is a judicial order commanding another court or person to perform a specific duty. In this case, Commissioners Cagle, Ramsey and their supporters requested the court to order Lina Hidalgo to stop the Ellis-3 Plan from moving forward.
Central Issue At Stake
The central issue in the case was whether 1.1 million people had their voting rights denied or delayed by the Ellis-3 plan. The Texas Supreme Court recognized the inevitable problem of preserving (or minimizing disruption to) voting rights in staggered elections when redistricting.
Basis for Denial
However, in denying the writ of mandamus, the judges cited:
Regarding the second point, the Justices wrote, “Relators claim to be in possession of an alternative map that lawfully redraws precincts without excluding any voter from consecutive county-commissioner elections. This map was not presented to the commissioners court, the district court, the Respondents, or this Court, and it is unclear how this map could become law.”
Justices Blacklock and Young wrote in delivering the opinion of the Texas Supreme Court that, “Expedition and precision in requesting relief help ensure that courts can never be converted, willingly or otherwise, into a partisan tool for one side or the other. Those requirements reduce the incentives for partisan adversaries to lie in wait with lawsuits that create chaos. To be clear, we do not charge Relators here with any such intention. We simply note that the rules are demanding because such conduct would otherwise go undeterred.”
Sets No Blanket Precedent
“We emphasize that our inability to address the merits of this petition on the eve of the election—because of the timing and nature-of-relief problems discussed above does not by any means establish that there is never any judicial relief that could be given,” said the ruling.
The Justices then spent several pages exploring questions about how judicial interference would affect the machinery of an election already in progress. “To be abundantly clear, by denying the petition today, we do not dispute that the constitutional issue Relators raise is a serious question that warrants this Court’s full consideration when properly presented.” The Justices just didn’t feel there were enough specifics in this case to let them do so.
Not a Summary Judgement
Significantly, the Texas Supreme Court said, “We deny the petition for writ of mandamus, but we do not do so lightly or summarily. Our decision implies no endorsement, affirmation, or other view of the redrawn map of precincts challenged here. Nor do we suggest that mandamus would never be an appropriate vehicle to resolve this question or ones like it. Our narrow holding is that this mandamus petition, under the circumstances we describe below, cannot go forward under settled precedents that sharply limit judicial authority to intervene in ongoing elections.”
Second Lawsuit Still Pending in Lower Court
A second lawsuit by former commissioner Steve Radack is still pending in the Harris County 190th Civil Court. That suit alleges the Ellis-3 plan should be invalidated because it was sprung on people at the last minute without sufficient public notice. The Texas Open Meetings Act demands a minimum of 72 hours notice.
But the Ellis-3 plan was posted online only minutes before the meeting in which the plan was approved. In that meeting, 94 members of the public signed up to speak. Not one of them mentioned the Ellis-3 plan. The first mention of Ellis-3 in the transcript is when commissioners started debating plans.
For the complete text of the Supreme Court ruling, click here.
For the official transcript of the meeting in which Commissioners approved the Ellis-3 Plan, click here.
It’s not clear how or if the Supreme Court of Texas ruling on the Cagle/Ramsey suit will affect any ruling in the Radack suit. Delays were a central issue in denying mandamus. And the Radack suit was filed six weeks AFTER the Cagle/Ramsey suit.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/7/22
1592 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Price of Progress?
Some say that mining sand from our rivers and flood plains is the price of progress.
Pros and Cons
Sand has its benefits. We need it to make concrete. And we need concrete to accommodate a growing population. And a growing population creates income for builders, tradesmen and other businesses.
But mining sand also has several downsides. It alters the environment on a large scale. Wildlife lose habitat. Erosion increases. The sediment can contribute to flooding by forming dams and reducing conveyance downstream. Water quality also suffers. These are global problems.
Out of Sight. Out of Time. Out of Mind.
Sand mining mostly takes place in floodplains along rivers. Because our terrain offers no elevated viewpoints, the only way to see the mines is from the air. So for the vast majority of people, they’re out of sight, out of mind and, as a consequence, we’re out of time. More than 20 square miles of sand mines already border the San Jacinto West Fork between I-45 and I-69.
The Hallett mine complex in Porter and an adjacent abandoned mine now stretch 3 miles north to south and 2 miles east to west. And Hallett is just one of several such complexes on the West Fork.
New Best Management Practices recently adopted by the TCEQ for sand mining will help in the future. But much damage has already been done.
Where Do We Go From Here?
It’s time to start a conversation about the price of progress. How do we restore this land to another useful purpose in the long run? And who should pay for that?
The Long-Term Question
What do you do with an area this large when miners finish?
Lots of questions. Little consensus.
When you start out to create a detention pond, it’s easy to plan recreation around it. But when the primary goal is mining, the end result can be dangerous, i.e., banks that cave in after miners walk away or kids playing on abandoned equipment.
The new Best Management Practices do not require miners to post a performance bond that would ensure cleanup and conversion to a suitable post-mining use.
In some areas, city and county governments make arrangements with miners to take over abandoned mines. That seems like a decent idea to me. That may be the price of progress.
We need dialog on this issue – unless we’re willing to let private industry turn our rivers into eyesores.
Posted by Bob Rehak
1591 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Former Commissioner Radack Files Second Redistricting Lawsuit; Hidalgo Responds to First
Former Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack filed a redistricting lawsuit on New Years Eve last week. This lawsuit comes hot on the heels of a previous lawsuit by Commissioners Jack Cagle, Tom Ramsey and their supporters. That lawsuit is now in the Texas Supreme Court. Here’s an overview of where both cases stand. The fate of flood mitigation in Harris County could hang in the balance.
Radack Lawsuit Alleges Lack of Sufficient Public Notice
The Radack lawsuit alleges that County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia passed a redistricting plan without providing sufficient public notice.
Radack claims that constitutes a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA). TOMA requires that members of the public must have 72 hours notice of provisions being considered, but the Ellis-3 redistricting plan was posted on the day of the meeting in which it was approved. The public had virtually no advance notice of the plan, and thus, no opportunity to comment on it. People first learned of the plan when Ellis rolled it out in the meeting during which he, Garcia and Hidalgo approved it.
The lawsuit further alleges that:
Radack filed his lawsuit on December 31st. The county clerk posted it on her website on Monday, January 3rd. The case landed in the 190th Court where Judge Beau Miller presides.
Hidalgo, Ellis and Christian Menafee, the County Attorney, issued public denials on Tuesday’s evening news. However, they have not yet filed a formal response to Radack’s lawsuit with the court.
Hidalgo Files Response to Cagle/Ramsey Suit Pending in Supreme Court
Commissioners Jack Cagle, Tom Ramsey and their supporters filed the first lawsuit. It is currently before the Texas Supreme Court. Their complaint focused on denial of voting rights for more than a million people. Judge Dedra Davis of the 270th District Court dismissed that lawsuit without explanation. The plaintiffs then directly filed for a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs did not have time to go through the normal appeal process.
In that case, Hidalgo filed a 185-page response on December 30th to the plaintiffs’ charges. Hidalgo contends that:
For the full text of Hidalgo’s response, click here.
Plaintiffs in this case also filed a request for an expedited ruling. To affect the next election without delaying it, a ruling would reportedly have to come sometime in January.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/5/2022
1590 Days since Hurricane Harvey