The Hays County Road Bond is back after a state appeals court reversed a lower court ruling that had invalidated the $439 million bond election approved by voters in 2024.
In a June 9 opinion, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals ruled that the November 2024 election approving the bond package should stand, finding that county officials complied with notice requirements and that challengers waited too long to raise their objections. The case has been sent back to the original trial court for further proceedings.
The ruling means the county won the appeal, the election remains valid and the bond program can move forward unless a higher court intervenes.
Attorney Bill Aleshire, who represents the plaintiffs, said his clients intend to file a motion for rehearing with the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, asking the court to reconsider what he believes are mistakes in the opinion. If the court declines to change its ruling, Aleshire said the plaintiffs plan to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.
"It's too big and important of a case for the enforcement of the Open Meetings Law in Texas to just accept that opinion," Aleshire said.
Hays County declined to comment on the ruling.
The lawsuit centered on whether Hays County properly notified the public in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act before commissioners voted to place the road bond proposition on the ballot.
Four Hays County residents claimed that an Aug. 13, 2024, Commissioners Court agenda item failed to adequately inform the public that commissioners would consider a road bond election. A district court agreed and earlier this year declared the election and resulting bonds invalid.
The appeals court disagreed, though the ruling was not unanimous. The majority found that the county complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act by considering both the physical courthouse notice and the county's online posting together. While the physical notice did not specifically mention roads, the online posting included detailed information about the proposed projects, bond amount and election, which the court found satisfied the law.
The court also found the plaintiffs waited too long to challenge the issue. According to the opinion, two of the plaintiffs attended the Aug. 13, 2024, Commissioners Court meeting and spoke against the proposal but did not file suit until Oct. 21 of that year, the first day of early voting.
The court said election-related challenges must be brought quickly so courts have time to address potential problems before voting begins. Once voting begins, the opinion states that courts are generally reluctant to intervene because doing so can disrupt the election process and “set aside” the will of voters.
The opinion also noted that voters approved the bond package by a margin of 64,599 votes to 51,258 votes and that the lawsuit did not challenge the accuracy of the election results themselves.
"It is one thing to set aside a local ordinance for violating TOMA," Chief Justice Scott Brister wrote. "But it is quite another to set aside the results of an election in which 64,599 voters approved road bonds."
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Scott Field argued that the county should still have to prove it complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act before the bonds can be validated.
Field agreed the plaintiffs likely filed their election challenge too late, but said that should not prevent them from challenging whether the county properly complied with open meetings requirements as part of the separate bond validation case.
Field also concluded that the Aug. 13, 2024, agenda notice was insufficient because it referred only to a bond election and did not specifically disclose that commissioners were considering a $439 million road bond package involving several controversial transportation projects.
In closing, Field described the litigation as "a procedural mess" and urged the Texas Supreme Court to review the case and provide additional guidance on how open meetings laws should apply to online agendas and supporting documents.
Aleshire argued that the dispute is about government transparency rather than the bond projects themselves. He contends county officials should have specifically identified the road bond proposal on the Aug. 13, 2024, agenda so residents would clearly understand what commissioners were considering.
Unless a higher court intervenes, the ruling restores the voter-approved bond program and removes the largest legal obstacle facing the county's transportation projects.
