A Texas judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging the City of Conroe illegally influenced voters during a charter amendment election, ruling the claims lacked sufficient factual support and cannot be refiled.
.png)
A state district judge has thrown out a lawsuit that alleged the City of Conroe improperly swayed voters in a charter amendment election. The judge ruled that the case lacked sufficient factual support and could not return to court.
On Monday, Judge Randall McDonald of the 344th District Court delivered a decisive ruling, dismissing the case with prejudice and bringing the legal challenge to a close.
A lawsuit was filed on December 3 by John Sellars, claiming that the city breached state law by sharing summaries of proposed charter amendments on its website and social media prior to the November election. Sellars asserted that the information constituted political advocacy that could have swayed voters.
In November, voters in Conroe evaluated 15 proposed amendments to the city charter, approving nine.
The city contended that the lawsuit lacked “essential factual allegations” necessary to substantiate the claims. In February, McDonald consented and provided Sellars with a 10-day period to revise the filing. On March 21, Sellars filed an amended complaint, but it was submitted after the court's deadline.
In his concluding decision, McDonald found that the revised submission continued to lack sufficient factual support to proceed.
City officials approved the decision, calling the lawsuit baseless.
Deputy City Administrator Nancy Mikeska characterized the case as “baseless,” asserting that it sought to undermine the election results.
Mikeska stated, “The lawsuit had no merit.” “The electoral process is designed for the populace to make their choice, and they have done so.”
City Administrator Gary Scott stated that the ruling reinforces the decision made by voters who took part in the election.
“I expected the judge to uphold the decision made by the citizens of Conroe,” Scott stated. “This victory belongs to every voter.”
Sellars, a local developer vying for a city council seat, contended in the lawsuit that the city neglected to disclose the communications as political advertising or to specify their funding sources.
Attempts to contact him for a statement after the ruling were unsuccessful.
The court's dismissal of the case with prejudice permanently bars any legal challenge to the approved charter amendments, thereby upholding them.
