Confusion again clouds District B race
Eligibility question raised, but this time about runoff winner
The election in Houston City Council’s District B was put on hold for a year as courts addressed whether one of the two finalists for the seat, Cynthia Bailey, was eligible to run for office.
Now, the winner of last month’s runoff, Tarsha Jackson, is drawing scrutiny of her own, just weeks after she prevailed against Bailey and took office at City Hall as District B’s city council member.
Some civic leaders in District B are asking the city attorney’s office to review Jackson’s eligibility because she lives in a portion of Harris County that Houston annexed for limited purposes. Residents in those areas can vote in city elections — Jackson’s voter registration shows she lives in District B — but state law appears to bar them from running for office. The Texas Local Government Code says residents in those areas are “not eligible to be a candidate for or to be elected to a municipal office.”
A city map of Houston annexations shows the north Houston address where Jackson lives was annexed by the city in 2002. The city planning department said it was a limited-purpose annexation, in which the city does not collect property taxes but can levy a sales tax. Jackson does not pay city property taxes on her home, according to the Harris County Appraisal District.
That could make Jackson ineligible, although the city has not taken a stand on the issue. City Attorney Arturo Michel declined an interview request.
Charles Noble, a leader with the Greater North-Northeast Coalition of Civic Clubs, said the latest questions are causing more confusion for District B’s historically neglected residents who already were flummoxed trying to make sense of a year-long delay in their council election. He and other coalition leaders held a call Sunday to try to sort through the issue.
“We’re all getting it from the residents, like, ‘What’s what?’ And we don’t have an answer to give,” Noble said. “We’re at a loss, because if she’s not qualified, then tell us. And if she is qualified, say that too.”
The city declared another
council candidate ineligible for living in an annexed neighborhood in 2019. Michelle Bonton was running for an at-large seat on council from her address near Lake Houston, a neighborhood that also was annexed for limited purposes. The city allowed Bonton on the ballot. When the Chronicle asked questions about Bonton’s candidacy, the city declared her ineligible in October, a month before the election. Her name remained on the ballot but votes for Bonton did not count.
The city does not vet candidates’ addresses in determining eligibility. Instead, city attorneys confirm the address listed is inthe district they hope to represent. The mayor’s office said in 2019 it declared eight candidates ineligible after those checks and others to ensure candidates have marked a box swearing they have not been convicted of a felony. More than 100 people ran for city council in 2019.
‘I met that criteria’
Jackson, a criminal justice organizer, said she did not know about the phrasing in the Local Governmental Code or her neighborhood’s annexation history. She votes in District B elections and said she did not have any concern about eligibility. Jackson said she disclosed her address on her ballot application and the city allowed her to run. She said her mind is on getting towork for District B residents.
“I’ve been forthright on everything when I applied to run to represent the residents of District B. My address is on all the documentation,” Jackson said. “I looked at the criteria we needed to run, and as far as I’m concerned, I met that criteria.”
She was sworn in by Mayor Sylvester Turner on Dec. 21.
Doug Ray, an Austin-based attorney with Ray & Wood who specializes in election law, said it is possible someone could pursue what is called a quo warranto lawsuit, a special type of filing designed to challenge officeholders. The county or district attorney would have to bring the suit themselves, or on behalf of another individual if they approve the claim.
“It’s within their discretion, and if they don’t sign on, it would be subject to dismissal,” Ray said, referring to the county and district attorneys.
He said the annexation question gets complicated based on the different types. The planning department said Jackson’s neighborhood is part of a limited purpose annexation through a strategic partnership with a municipal utility district.
Another layer of uncertainty
“Assuming all those things are true … that limitation would apply,” Ray said of the barrier on running for office.
Questions about Jackson’s eligibility add another layer of uncertainty to District B, where the council race was delayed for a year amid legal battles about Bailey’s ability to run. Third place finisher Renee Jefferson-Smith argued Bailey’s 2007 felony conviction for theft made her ineligible.
A separate state law says candidates cannot run if they have a final felony conviction from which they have not been pardoned or otherwise released from its “resulting disabilities,” a vague legal phrase.
Jefferson-Smith filed two lawsuits in the matter. In one, Jefferson-Smith’s team argued the city erred in administering the election because it did not declare Bailey ineligible. District and appellate judges declined to back that view, allowing the runoff between Jackson and Bailey to proceed in December.
Jackson won with 68.7 percent of the vote. District B begins in neighborhoods north of downtown such as Kashmere Gardens and Greater Fifth Ward and stretches up to Greenspoint.