Title
Discuss and consider items requested for review by the City Attorney.
Body
DISCUSSION:
The City Attorney will provide information regarding the following items previously discussed at previous Charter Review Committee meetings.
1. Language to allow three (3) Councilmembers, not including the Mayor, to constitute a quorum.
Sec. 2.14. - Quorum; voting.
Any four (4) A majority of the members of the Council (which will not may include the Mayor) shall constitute a quorum necessary for the transaction of official business at any meeting of the Council. Voting shall be by "aye" or "no" on roll call or by a show of hands. Except as specifically provided for in this Charter or by state law, a majority vote of the members of the Council present is required for the passage of an ordinance, resolution, or other matter. Any member may call for a roll call vote at any time on any matter being voted on by the Council, and the vote of each member shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Any Councilmember abstaining from voting shall not be taken as an affirmative or a negative vote [OR] Any Councilmember abstaining from voting on a motion shall be taken as voting "aye" in favor the motion.
2. Research and provide pros and cons related to adding an at-large Councilmember.
In 2013, a judgment of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that the pre-2013 at-large voting system in Farmers Branch violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §1973). See, Fabela v. City of Farmers Branch, No. 3:10-cv-1425-D (N.D. Tex. 2012). In the Fabela case, the federal court approved a settlement that restructured the voting scheme to the current 5-member district arrangement. However, the judgment contains the following language:
“Provided, further, the City is not precluded from amending its election system pursuant to state law and the city charter so long as any amendment is consistent with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. . .”
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits race-based vote dilution, meaning states and cities may not adopt election policies and procedures-including electoral district maps-that deprive a group of nonwhite voters of an equal opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. Proof of a racially disparate impact has historically been sufficient. Federal law requires a three-part test: a plaintiff must first prove that (1) the minority group is “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district,” (2) the minority group “is politically cohesive,” and (3) “the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it-in the absence of special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed-usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
In April of this year, the US Supreme Court decided the Louisiana v. Callais case (Louisiana v. Callais, No. 24-109, April 29, 2026), essentially holding that race may not be the predominant factor (in creating or diluting racial voting blocs) in drawing electoral districts. Districts may be drawn on political party lines regardless of the disparate impact on minority voters.
Without having a breakdown of current voter racial or ethnic composition or voting behavior in Farmers Branch, any analysis would necessarily be speculative. It cannot be said with any degree of confidence that a charter amendment creating one at-large position would of itself be a violation of the Voting Rights Act as the US Supreme Court now interprets it, but it is clearly possible that a single at-large position, if not created with the intent to dilute minority voting strength, could be upheld.
The benefit of an at-large member would in theory be that the at-large member would be responsive to the interests of the city overall as opposed to the specific needs of his/her district. This might give more balance to the council. The detriment would be a possible dilution of minority voting and, of course, the possibility of litigation contesting the charter amendment.
One other related matter: if an additional councilmember were to be added, it may be advisable to restructure the council such that the mayor may vote on all matters coming before the council. When the council composition increases, it results in 6 voting members. A seventh voting member avoids ties.
3. Language related to abstentions. Currently, the charter provides for abstentions as neither a yes nor a no vote. Committee to determine if the language or definition should be clarified and amended.
The current charter provides that abstention is neither in favor of nor against the motion. The other option is to regard an abstention as a "nay" vote.