NO. ______________________
PHILLIP PAUL BRYANT
Plaintiff

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

v.
ANNISE D. PARKER, et al
Defendant

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
_______TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

CONTESTANT’S ORIGINAL ELECTION CONTEST

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, PHILLIP PAUL BRYANT (herein “Plaintiff” or “Contestant”), who files this, its
Original Election Contest and Requests for Disclosure, against ANNISE D. PARKER, MAYOR and the
CITY OF HOUSTON (herein collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “Constestees”) and for cause of
action would respectfully show the court as follows:
I.
Discovery Control Plan
1. Plaintiff intends for discovery to be conducted under Level 2 of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure.
II.
Parties
2. Pursuant to § 233.022 of the Texas Election Code, Contestant PHILLIP PAUL BRYANT has
standing to bring an election contest in civil district court concerning a proposition (“Proposition 2”)
that was on the November 3, 2015 ballot in Harris County because he is a qualified registered voter
who resides in Harris County, Texas. Additionally, Contestant voted against Proposition 2 in the
City of Houston General Election held on November 3, 2015.

 3. In accordance with Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 17.024(b), Contestees Annise D. Parker,
Mayor and City of Houston may be served by serving the mayor, clerk, secretary or treasurer.
According to the City of Houston website, the Mayor may be served with citation at the City of
Houston, 900 Bagby, Houston, Texas 77002. The City of Houston should be served by serving the
Mayor as well. Moreover, according to § 233.003(2) of the Texas Election Code, on of the
Contestees may be the presiding officer of the authority that ordered the contested election, which
would be Annise D. Parker, Mayor, who may be served as referenced above.
III.
Jurisdiction
4. The court has jurisdiction over the cause of action because the amount in controversy is within the
jurisdictional limits of the court and Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less and
non-monetary relief.
IV.
Venue
5. In accordance with Tex. Elec. Code § 221.002(a), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over
this election contest.
6. In accordance with Tex. Elec. Code § 233.005, the district court in Harris County, Texas is the
appropriate venue for this election contest. Furthermore, if necessary, venue in this action is proper
and maintainable in Harris County, Texas under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.002(a)
because the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Harris County, Texas.
Specifically, the City of Houston’s General Election concerning Proposition 2 was held in Harris
County, Fort Bend County, and Montgomery County on November 3, 2015. Pursuant to §231.004 of
the Texas Election Code, no Judge in Harris County, Fort Bend County, or Montgomery County

 may hear this suit, and a Judge from another County must be assigned.
V.
Facts
7. Annise Parker and the City of Houston have a history with misleading voters when it comes to ballot
language. Indeed in 2015 alone, Texas Supreme Court has found that Annise Parker and the City of
Houston have used inappropriate ballot language at least twice.12
8. On November 3, 2015, registered voters of the City of Houston were asked to vote on several
propositions, including a proposition extending term limits. (“Proposition 2”). The ballot language
for Proposition 2 reads as follows:
(Relating to Term Limits for City Elective Office) Shall the City Charter of the City of
Houston be amended to reduce the number of terms of elective offices to no more than two
terms in the same office and limit the length for all terms of elective office to four years,
beginning in January 2016; and provide for transition?
9. The voters of the City of Houston passed Proposition 2 on November 3, 2015.
10. The language of Proposition 2 was misleading in one of more of the following ways:
a. The ballot language suggested that it would “limit” term length instead of expanding them
from two year terms to four year terms;
b. The ballot language suggested that the “limit the length for all terms” to be four years instead

1

See: Dacus v. Parker, 061215 TXSC, 13-0047.
A case where the Supreme Court of Texas found the proposition misleading because the City of Houston omitted a chief feature –
part of the character and purpose – of the measure.
2
ASee:
caseInwhere
the Supreme
Court
of Texas
found the proposition misleading because the City of Houston omitted a chief feature –
re Williams,
081915
TXSC,
15-0581.
part of the character and purpose – of the measure.
2
See: In re Williams, 081915 TXSC, 15-0581.
A case where Supreme Court of Texas found the ballot language provided by the City of Houston was incorrect and should read
as to either accept or reject the ordinance.

 of allowing elected municipal officials to serve a total of up to eight or ten years;
c. The ballot language omitted a chief features of the proposition, mainly extending the amount
of time a municipal elected official can serve to a total of eight or ten years;
d. The ballot language omitted a chief feature of the proposition, mainly it suggested that it
would limit the amount of times a municipal elected official can serve to two terms, when in
fact there were exceptions which substantially benefit incumbents;
e. As admitted by Annise D. Parker, the ballot language suggested voters were limiting the
amount of time for municipal elected officials to serve in office when in fact the voters were
allowing them to serve more time.
11. To further evidence that the City of Houston misled its voters, Houston Chronicle reports that the
underlying ballot language was obscured3:
Political scientists were not convinced Tuesday's result was proof of radically shifting
attitudes, however. The ballot language did not spell out the effect on incumbents or that the
item would loosen the existing restrictions.
"It was ballot confusion or obfuscation," Texas Southern University political scientist
Michael Adams said. "The way it was written, some people may have thought they were
voting to limit the terms rather than extend them to two four-year terms."
That take made sense to Rice University political scientist Bob Stein, who added, "Nobody
reads the ballot when they walk in there. They don't have to read it to vote."
12. To further evidence that the City of Houston misled its voters, Houston Public Media reports that the
ballot language didn’t tell the whole truth and Annise D. Parker admits voters were misinformed4:

3

Houston Chronicle, Voters Extend Term Limits (November 4, 2015), available at:
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/election/local/article/Voters-extend-term-limits-6609271.php
4
Houston Public Media, Did Voters Know They Were Approving Extended Term Limits in Houston? (November 6, 2015) available
at:http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2015/11/06/125962/did-voters-know-they-were-approving-extended-term-li
mits-in-houston/

 “When we informed voters that the adoption of the two four-year (terms) would take place
immediately in 2016 and advantage incumbent council members, support swung the other
way and it was a deficit of 17 points against,” Stein said.
But that information was not in the ballot language.
In fact, it didn’t even mention that it would actually extend term limits.
Even Houston Mayor Annise Parker acknowledged that this week.
“I don’t know that they realized that they were giving council members more time in office,”
she said.
13. In addition, voters were simultaneously casting ballots for municipal candidates when the length of
term and term limits for respective candidates were uncertain. In that regard alone, voters were
mislead as to the length of time and term limits for such candidates as this information was not
known at the time of the respective vote.
VI.
Cause of Action:
14. The Local Government Code, a state statute, addresses city charters. § 9.004(d) prohibits an
amendment from containing more than one subject, as stated above Proposition 2 violated this
statute because it concerns more than one subject. Therefore, Proposition 2 is illegal and cannot be
implemented as a charter amendment.
15. Further, state law requires that a proposition be described with such a definiteness and certainty that
the voters are not misled. Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1999). In this regard, the ballot
should contain a description of the measure “in such language as to constitute a fair portrayal of [its]
chief features… in the words of plain meaning, so that it can be understood by persons entitled to
vote.” Wright v. Board of Trustees of Tatum Indep. School Dist., 520 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Civ.
App.-Tyler 1975, writ dism’d). As such, “a ballot adequately describes a proposed amendment if it

 gives fair notice to the voter of average intelligence by directing him to the amendment so that he
can discern its identity and distinguish it from other propositions on the ballot.” Hardy v. Hannah,
849 S.W.2d 355 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, writ denied). Proposition 2 clearly did not do this.
Proposition 2’s ballot language did not adequately describe what the electorate was actually being
asked to vote on. For example, Proposition 2 suggested that it was limiting terms when in fact it
expanded them. Accordingly, the ballot language does not accurately describe the object and effect
of Proposition 2, causing voters to be intentionally misled.
16. For all the foregoing reasons, Contestant seeks a declaration from this Court stating that Proposition
2 is illegal and invalid as a matter of law, and now files this election contest to invalidate the
outcome of the election on this particular Proposition.
VII.
Conclusion
17. For the reasons detailed above, Contestants respectfully request that upon a final hearing, this Court
sustain this Election Contest and declare that Proposition 2 is illegal and invalid as a matter of law,
as well as award all costs of suit, and such other and further relief to which Contestants may show
themselves to be justly entitled.
VIII.
PLAINTIFF MAKES 194 REQUESTS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

Respectfully Submitted,

 DICK LAW FIRM, PLLC

Eric B. Dick, LL.M.
TBN: 24064316
FIN: 1082959
Joe Synoradzki
TBN: 24088498
FIN: 2677443
3701 Brookwoods Drive
Houston, Texas 77092
(844) 447-3234 Office
(713) 893-6931 Facsimile
eric@dicklawfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR CONTESTANT

LAW OFFICE OF ROGELIO GARCIA
_
Rogelio Garcia
TBN: 07645800
1317 Telephone Road
Houston, Texas 77021
(713) 926-8800 Office
(713) 926-7700 Facsimile
OF COUNSEL FOR CONTESTANT

LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS CARMONA

THE FULTON LAW GROUP, PLLC

/s/ Chris Carmona
Chris Carmona
TBN: 24072022
PO BOX 7137
Houston, Texas 77248
(832) 444-4293 Office
(832) 460-2724 Facsimile
OF COUNSEL FOR CONTESTANT

/s/ Kevin Fulton
Kevin Fulton
TBN: 24059787
2855 Mangum Road, Suite 413
Houston, Texas 77092
(713) 677-0109 Office
(832) 201-8847 Facsimile
OF COUNSEL FOR CONTESTANT