[Press Conference: "Austin Judge Ruling on House Bill 2127"]
[00:00:19]
LET ME JUST MAKE A, UM, A, A BRIEF STATEMENT, UH, FIRST AND THEN, UM, UM, STANDING WITH, UH, TOUR MICHELLE CITY, LEGAL ATTORNEY, AND HE CAN ALSO, UH, COMMENT ON HOUSE BILL 2127.UH, AS YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT I STOOD BEFORE YOU, UM, AND SAID THAT THE CITY WOULD BE CHALLENGING HOUSE BILL 2127, ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS AN OVERREACH, UM, ON LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT, LIKE HOME ROO, CITIES LIKE THE CITY OF HOUSTON, UM, THAT IT WAS STRIPPING OF, OF, UH, OF OUR ABILITY, UH, TO SERVE THE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY AND ABOUT EIGHT DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
UM, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE WAY, UH, HB, UH, IN 2127 IS STRUCTURED, UH, THE CITY OF HOUSTON WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO SEEK PERMISSION, UH, FROM, UH, THE STATE BEFORE VENTURING INTO MANY OF THESE TERRITORIES, UM, WHICH IS TO, UH, UH, TOTALLY INCONSISTENT, UH, WITH THE TAXES WITH THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
WE SAID THEN THAT WE WOULD, UH, INITIATE A LAWSUIT, UH, CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HB, UH, 2127.
UH, SINCE THAT TIME, SEVERAL OTHER CITIES, UM, SAN ANTONIO, EL PASO, AND A DOZEN OR MORE LARGE AND SMALL CITIES FROM ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS, UH, JOINED WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON IN CHALLENGING, UH, 2127, UH, TODAY.
UM, THE JUDGE IN AUSTIN, I THINK IT WAS JUDGE GAMBLE, UH, HEARD THE ALL ARGUMENTS OF, UH, HOUSTON, EL PASO, SAN ANTONIO OF THE STATE AS WELL, IN DEFENSE OF 2127.
AND THE COURT, UH, STRUCK DOWN, UH, 2127, UH, PRIMARILY ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS VAGUE, UM, THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR ANY CITY, UH, HOME RULE CITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS TO KNOW WHAT IT SHOULD DO OR WHAT IT COULDN'T DO.
UM, AND THAT, UH, THAT JUST DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T WORK.
SO THAT'S A TREMENDOUS VICTORY, UM, UH, FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
IT'S A TREMENDOUS VICTORY, UH, FOR THE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS, UH, THE LOCAL LEADERSHIP TO REPRESENT, UH, THE HOUSTONIANS THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION, UH, TO SERVE.
SO I WANNA, I WANT TO THANK, UM, ARTUR MICHELLE, UM, UH, AND HIS LEGAL TEAM, UH, FOR JUST DOING AN, A AWESOME JOB IN REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF, OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
I CERTAINLY WANT TO THANK, UH, HIM.
UM, AND THEN SECONDLY, I WANT TO THANK, UH, THE OTHER CITIES FROM ACROSS THE STATE AND THE OTHER MAYORS, UH, WHO JOINED IN, IN THIS CASE, SPECIFICALLY SAN ANTONIO AND EL PASO, AND MANY NORTHERN CITIES, LARGE AND SMALL, UM, WHO JOINED IN, IN STANDING UP, UM, UH, FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
AND ALREADY TODAY, UM, BEEN A NUMBER OF, UM, MESSAGES EXCHANGED WITH MAYORS FROM ACROSS THE STATE, UH, VOICING, UM, OUR PLEASURE, UM, AND THE COURT'S DECISION.
SO, UM, IT'S A GOOD DAY, UH, FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE SERVE.
AND NOW, LET ME, LET ME YIELD, UH, FOR TO ATTORNEY, UH, TO ATTORNEY MICHELLE.
UM, I THINK TODAY WAS A GREAT VICTORY AND IT, I THINK ALL BEGAN WITH A STRONG RELATIONSHIP THAT THE MAYORS HAVE, NOT ONLY OF THE LARGE CITIES, BUT ALSO OF THE MEDIUM SIZE AND SMALLER CITIES.
UM, I HAVE SEEN THE MAYOR'S INTERACT ALL REALIZE THEY'RE IN THE SAME BOAT, AND THIS WAS A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO CITIES' ABILITY TO RESPOND TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
UH, THIS BILL, UH, WOULD'VE, UH, FLIPPED THE WAY TEXAS HAS OPERATED FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT GIVES HOME RULE GOVERNANCE TO CITIES.
THE LAW HAS BEEN FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT ONLY IF THERE IS A DIRECT AND IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WHERE THE INTENT TO PREEMPT IS SHOWN BY UNMISTAKABLE CLARITY.
CAN A LOCAL LAW BE STRUCK DOWN? THIS SHIFTED IT COMPLETELY AND SAID, YOU CANNOT ENTER INTO CERTAIN FIELDS.
EIGHT SPECIFIC, UH, CODES OF LAWS WERE ADDRESSED.
AND HAD THIS STATUTE BEEN ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN EACH SESSION, MORE CODES COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED, WOULD'VE EFFECTIVELY CRE UH, TAKEN HOME RULE CITIES AND MADE THEM LIKE GENERAL
[00:05:01]
LAW CITIES, LIKE COUNTIES, LIKE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.IN OTHER WORDS, IF ANY CHANGE HAD TO BE MADE, YOU HAD TO GO BACK TO A LEGISLATURE THAT MEETS FOR A HALF YEAR EVERY TWO YEARS.
SO I THINK THE, UH, THE VICTORY TODAY IS A RESULT, I THINK, OF THE CITY'S BANDING TOGETHER.
IT WAS VERY CLEAR FROM THE HEARING TODAY THAT THE COURT HAD READ EVERYTHING, AND IT WAS A VOLUMINOUS WHAT WAS FILED BETWEEN THE, THE, UH, THE PARTIES THAT, TO THE LAWSUIT AND THE NUMEROUS INTERVENERS.
AND SO I THINK IT REFLECTS, UH, VERY WELL ON THE TEXAS JUDICIARY THAT WE WERE ABLE TO REACH THIS RESULT.
ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE? YES, I'D LIKE TO START, MAYOR.
UM, SO NOW THAT'S BEEN, UM, THE JUDGE HAS RULED ON IT.
SO WILL HB 2127 TAKE EFFECT ON FRIDAY? OR WILL AN APPEAL BY THE STATE AFFECT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN? WHAT, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE ON THE PHONE? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND CERTAIN MATERIAL, UM, UH, CAN WEIGH IN, UM, THAT THE BILL WAS SCHEDULED TO TAKE EFFECT ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER ONE, UH, VIRTUE OF THE, OF THE RULING ITSELF.
I THINK THAT'S BEEN PRETTY MUCH, UM, UM, I GET TO SAY PUT ON HOLD, SO TO SPEAK.
AS, AS IT GOES THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCESS, THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD BE A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, FOR EXAMPLE.
UH, IT NOW GOES THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCESS, UH, BUT THERE IS A DEFINITIVE RULING, UH, THAT HB 2127, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND I THINK CITIES ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN USE THAT IF THERE'S ANY ATTEMPT TO, UM, UH, CIRCUMVENT, UH, THE COURT'S, UH, DETERMINATION, BUT IT WILL GO THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCESS, AND THAT TAKES SOME TIME OR TO, YEAH, NO, I, I THINK THE MAYOR HAS SUMMED IT UP CORRECTLY.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE LAW WILL STILL BE ON THE BOOKS COME SEPTEMBER 1ST, BUT BECAUSE OF THIS RULING, AND WE HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE RULING WOULD LOOK LIKE, THE, THE COURT IS FASHIONING AN ORDER.
IT HAD REQUESTED THE PARTIES TO PROVIDE PROPOSED ORDERS, BUT THE JUDGE INDICATED THAT SHE WOULD GRANT THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UH, IN FULL.
SO IT WILL FIND THAT THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
UH, THE SCHEME UNDER THIS STATUTE WAS TO, UH, ANY, PRETTY MUCH ANYONE, INCLUDING TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, COULD CHALLENGE ANY LOCAL ORDINANCE AFTER A 90 DAY PERIOD OF GIVING NOTICE AND THEN FILE LAWSUIT SHOULD SOMEONE STILL PROCEED.
AND WE GET TO THE POINT THAT, UM, WE'VE EX, UH, UH, THAT 90 DAYS HAVE PASSED AND THE LAWSUIT IS FILED.
I THINK WHAT MUNICIPALITIES WILL DO IS FILE A MOTION TO ABATE WITH THE COURT AND SAY, THIS IS IN THE, THE PIPELINE RIGHT NOW, IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE AUSTIN COURT, AND PRESUMABLY THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, ULTIMATELY THE SUPREME COURT.
AND YOU NEED TO, YOU NEED TO ABATE THIS ACTION.
I THINK THAT WILL BE THE LIKELY OUTCOME OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
BUT JUST BEAR IN MIND, THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE, LET'S SAY THE STATE CAN GO DIRECTLY NOW TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AND GET A DECISION, LET'S SAY BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER THE FIRST.
IT WILL GO THROUGH THE REGULAR APPELLATE PROCESS, AND THAT'S A, AND THAT'S A FAIRLY DRAWN OUT PROCESS.
AND SO FOR NOW, UH, UH, HOUSE BILL 21, 27 HAS BEEN RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AND THEN, UM, AND WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS.
AND MAYOR, COULD YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT IT AFFECT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS? FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH BOARDING HOMES OR YOU'RE DEALING WITH NOISE ORDINANCES, OR YOU'RE DEALING WITH PAYDAY LENDING, ESSENTIALLY, UH, HOUSE BILL 2127, THE WAY IT IS CONSTRUCTED, WE PRETTY MUCH SAY TO CITIES, HOME RULE CITIES, YOU CANNOT VENTURE INTO THESE AREAS, UH, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND NORMALLY WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING, IF A CITY SHOULD PASS, UM, AN ORDINANCE, AND IF THAT ORDINANCE CONFLICTS WITH THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, UH, THEN IT CAN BE CHALLENGED.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE ON THE HOUSE, BILL 2127, THERE NEED NOT BE A CONFLICT AT ALL.
UM, YOU JUST LOOK AT 21, 27 AND 2127 SAYS, IF YOU, IF THE STATE DOES NOT TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON, IF THE STATE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO VENTURE INTO THIS AREA, YOU CANNOT VENTURE INTO THIS AREA.
YOU CANNOT PASS ANY ORDINANCE.
THAT IS A, A SEISMIC DIFFERENCE, UH, FROM THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED FOR WELL OVER A HUNDRED YEARS.
SO, UH, THIS WAS A, THIS, THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED THE SUPER PREEMPTION BILL.
AND IN FACT, UH, THE AUTHOR OF THE SUPER PREEMPTION BILL ON THE HOUSE SIDE SAID THAT IT WAS A LIVING, BREATHING DOCUMENT, WHICH MEANS IT, IT IS HIGHLY UNCLEAR AS TO HOW FAR IT GOES.
AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, THE JUDGE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE BILL IN
[00:10:01]
AND OF ITSELF, AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, WRITTEN, IS SO VAGUE THAT CITIES, UH, WOULD NOT HAVE MUCH GUIDANCE ON WHERE TO STOP, WHERE NOT TO STOP, UM, AND THEREFORE VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS, AND IT WAS STRUCK DOWN.AND ONE FINAL QUESTION FROM ME.
YOU WERE A LEGISLATURE, BEEN THE LEGISLATURE FOR A LOT OF YEARS, 27, AND NOW YOU'RE THE MAYOR.
YOU'VE BEEN THE MAYOR FOR TWO TERMS. RIGHT.
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE POWER, THE POWER BETWEEN LOCAL AND, AND STATE.
'CAUSE IT'S DEFINITELY CHANGED IN MY POINT.
THERE WAS A TIME, UH, WHERE FOR A LONG TIME IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, LOCAL CONTROL PRETTY MUCH.
UM, AND SO AT THE STATE LEVEL, YOU DEFER TO LOCAL CONTROL.
AND THE WHOLE MANTRA WAS THAT GOVERNMENT IS BEST, THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES.
AND THE STATE SHOULD NOT, AND BIG GOVERNMENT, LET'S SAY AT THE STATE LEVEL, UM, WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS VIEWED AS A TABOO.
NOW, UH, WE ARE LIVING IN A TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THE STATE IS, UH, GETTING BIGGER, BIGGER, BIGGER, AND PRETTY MUCH IS TRYING TO PREEMPT LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT FROM REPRESENTING THEIR, UH, CONSTITUENCIES.
AND I'M TALKING ABOUT CITIES, I'M TALKING ABOUT COUNTIES, UH, LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT.
SO IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN A CHANGE, UH, AS A SEISMIC CHANGE, UM, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS FOR THE BEST.
AND IT IS BEST EXEMPLIFIED UNDER HOUSE BILL 2127, WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE SUPER PREEMPTION BILL.
SO, UM, UH, I AM GLAD IN, IN THIS CASE, AND THAT THE JUDGE THAT LOOKED AT ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS AND HEARD THE, HE, UH, DOCUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES, UH, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HOUSE BILL 2127, AS IT IS WRITTEN, IS, UH, HIGHLY BAY VAIN, AMBIGUOUS, AND THEREFORE, UM, IS ATIVE OF DETECTIVE'S CONSTITUTION.
OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE? THAT'S BILL.
BILL KELLY BACK THERE, WHO'S THE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON GOVERNMENT, UM, UH, AFFAIRS AND WAS IN AUSTIN EVERY SINGLE DAY.
AND ALSO AS HIGHLY FAMILIAR WITH HOUSE BILL, UH, 21, 27.
YEAH, I DO WANT, I DO WANT TO, I DO WANT TO GIVE A, UH, A PERSONAL THANK YOU, UH, TO ONE OF OUR SENIOR ATTORNEYS WHO ARGUED THE CASE, UH, IN AUSTIN AND REPRESENTING THE CITY OF HOUSTON, COLLEEN PETTY, UH, WHO DID AN EXCEPTIONAL, AN AN EXCEPTIONAL JOB.
UM, YOU KNOW, UM, SHE IS A, AN ATTORNEY WITHIN THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT, UH, MANY, MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
UM, SHE, UH, REPRESENTED WAS THE POINT PERSON FOR US ON THIS, ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
AND I CERTAINLY WANT TO THANK, UH, THANK HER, UH, FOR HER, FOR HER, UM, INTELLECT, UM, FOR ARGUMENTS AND FOR LAYING OUT THE CITY'S CASE, UH, VERY WELL.
AND SO, AND THEN OF COURSE, ATTORNEY MICHELLE AND HIS ENTIRE TEAM, BECAUSE IT HAS TAKEN A COLLECTIVE EFFORT, AND AGAIN, UH, TO ALL OF THE CITIES ACROSS THE STATE AND TO ALL OF THE MAYORS, UH, WHO CAME TOGETHER, THIS WAS NOT JUST A VICTORY FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
IT WAS A VICTORY FOR HOME BREW CITIES, UH, ACROSS THE STATE, ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MAYOR.