San Antonio Court of Appeals holds forfeited councilmember can only seek reinstatement through quo warranto proceeding
City of Leon Valley v. Benny Martinez, 04-19-00879-CV (Tex. App. – San Antonio, August 19, 2020, no pet. h.)
This is a council forfeiture case which the San Antonio Court of Appeals held could only be brought in a quo warranto proceeding.
Section 3.12 of the city charter describes the procedures for council investigations. Benny Martinez was a sitting city council member. After several complaints were filed against him for alleged charter violations the city council held §3.12 hearings. The city council ultimately declared he forfeited his place on the council and removed him. Martinez sued, alleging the procedures used to remove him from office violated his due process rights. He sought a declaratory judgment “to determine [his] right to be reinstated following his removal [from Place 4].” The city filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was denied. The city filed this interlocutory appeal.
A writ of quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy available to determine disputed questions about the proper person entitled to hold a public office and exercise its functions. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 66.001. The purpose of a quo warranto action involving officeholders is to determine disputed questions concerning who may hold such office. The court held the plain and unambiguous language of the quo warranto statute confers standing exclusively on the State, not a private litigant. While Martinez asserted his removal was void (thereby trying to fall within an exception to the exclusivity), the court held none of Martinez’s factual allegations allege void acts, only voidable acts if proven. The plea should have been granted.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justice Martinez, Justice Alvarez and Justice Rios. Opinion by Justice Alvarez.