Congratulations, Dallas voters, for appearing to get it right on two out of three proposed amendments to our local constitution that were designed to gut City Hall.
With 50% of the vote counted just after midnight, residents — bucking our world’s overwhelming penchant for fast and easy fixes — seem to have made responsible decisions on propositions T and U. Sadly, on Proposition S, which forces the city to waive its governmental immunity, voters have succumbed to the magic beans being sold by shadowy outsiders.
S, T and U, the so-called “Hero Initiative amendments,” were designed to dupe residents who are frustrated with City Hall.
Proposition T would put the city manager’s employment in the hands of the 0.1% of residents who respond to a survey. Proposition U would mandate a force of 4,000 cops, which is such an impossibility the Dallas Police Association opposed it and labeled it “doomsday” for the city’s budget.
The apparent success of Proposition S bakes bad governance into Dallas’ charter. It would allow anyone to file costly lawsuits against the city — even if they have no stake in the supposed grievance.
Voting is not a game; it’s serious business. Elections determine how we are going to live and the kind of government we’re going to have.
Concern about the potential damage of the three propositions was so great that 74 current and former city, county and state elected officials joined forces in a bipartisan coalition to get the facts out.
My interviews with two dozen voters in various parts of the city Tuesday indicated Dallas residents relied on gut instinct when it came to their decisions on S, T and U — not on the intensive campaigns waged by either side. The only consensus among voters was the propositions were written in the most confounding way possible.
North Dallas resident Ben Michiels, 55, told me he had no idea his ballot would include propositions until he arrived at the Royal Lane Baptist Church polling place Tuesday. “That’s my bad for not looking into them prior,” he said.
His on-the-spot decision was that Proposition S was worth a yes vote. Cities aren’t perfect organizations and people should have the right to take legal action, he said. “We can hope those suits are worthwhile, not the ridiculous lawsuits people file all the time.”
Michiels also voted yes on Proposition U and no on Proposition T.
Sarah Cundiff, 36, a North Dallas strategy consultant, also said she knew nothing about the propositions when she walked into the Royal Lane church. She acknowledged it was possible she received texts or mailers regarding S, T and U but “there was so much of that stuff I just didn’t read it.”
She voted yes for Proposition S because “it feels like the city has more rights than the citizens under the current system.” She hoped her vote would lead to more power for residents.
Cundiff also voted yes for Proposition T and no for Proposition U.
Two of the voters I spoke with said the coalition of past and present leaders against the propositions influenced their votes.
Far East Dallas resident Cynthia Anzaldua, 68, voted no on all three. “People I respect, like former Mayor Ron Kirk, opposed them,” she said outside the Samuell Grand Recreation Center in East Dallas.
Delores Cullivan, 70, who lives near White Rock Lake, also said no to S, T and U. As a member of the nonpartisan League of Women Voters, she looked into the propositions and found them to be bad governance. She also mentioned the “Vote No” mailer that included the names and photos of former and current leaders and their arguments against the propositions.
“I’m with them,” she said. “Count me with them.”
Bravo to all the Dallas voters who, like Anzaldua and Cullivan, said no to the three propositions promoted under the fear-mongering flag of “safety and accountability.”
If Proposition S wins out, I fear the already overloaded City Attorney’s Office will be inundated with frivolous lawsuits.
But If Prop T falls, at least potential candidates for the city manager’s job will be able to apply with confidence that the city’s finances and the top boss’ tenure rest on professional governance. If Prop U goes down, the city, police department and residents can move forward collaboratively on the areas where Dallas falls short.
The outcome could have been better. But the results give some hope Dallas remains true to what makes it great — a city that comes together to solve problems. A place whose leaders don’t govern by fear but by what’s possible.
