Annise Parker
The city of Houston, which created a firestorm of controversy by issuing subpoenas for copies of pastors’ sermons in a case over a transgender “rights” ordinance, now contends the pastors have no right to a jury trial and wants a hand-picked “special master” to review the evidence.
The dispute centers on tens of thousands of signatures collected on petitions to overturn the city’s “equal rights” ordinance adopted under the direction of lesbian mayor Annise Parker. Church members and pastors were outraged, and they collected the signatures to reverse the decision.
The city, however, simply determined that thousands of pages of signatures were invalid. In response, the lawsuit was filed to force the city to follow its charter regarding petition signatures and challenged ordinances.
Parker subpoenaed five pastors, demanding copies of any sermons related to her and “gay” issues, a move that was ridiculed by commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, America’s top-rated radio host, who described the mayor’s actions as “vile.”
“I think what that mayor in Houston has done may be one of the most vile, filthy, blatant violations of the Constitution that I have seen,” Limbaugh said on his national broadcast. “And I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why law authorities are not pursuing this. I cannot understand it.”
A short time later, the city withdrew subpoenas, but now it has submitted several motions in the case, including one asking the state district court to deprive the pastors of a jury decision, leaving it only to a judge.
The city claims that since the pastors want an “election,” it is therefore an “election dispute,” and the state does not grant the right to a jury trial for election disputes.
The plaintiffs pointed out they submitted a timely demand for a jury trial and paid the fee and, therefore, are entitled to a jury decision under the Texas Constitution.
“An election contest is a contest of an election which has already taken place. No election has occurred in this case. Calling plaintiffs’ lawsuit an ‘election contest’ does not make it an election contest,” they argued. “An election contest has a very precise and narrow definition in the Texas Election Code, and, as one might anticipate, requires that an actual election has transpired.”
They continued: “If the plaintiffs prevail on their claims, then not only is the mayor’s so-called Equal Rights Ordinance temporarily suspended, but the Houston City Council will be required to immediately convene and reconsider whether to repeal the ERO in its entirety. Council’s failure to do so then triggers a duty on behalf of the city to order an election and allow the registered voters of Houston [to] vote on whether the ERO should be repealed or not.”
The city also told the court it wanted a ruling that a special master would be appointed to hear evidence, keeping it out of the hands of a jury or a judge.
“Given the complex and technical nature of the issues presented in this lawsuit, and the difficulty of applying the various legal requirements to plaintiffs deficient but voluminous referendum petition, defendants ask this court to appoint a special master.”
Click here to read more.
SOURCE: WND
Bob Unruh
