McALLEN — A federal judge denied the city of Edinburg’s attempt to throw out a lawsuit filed by Ground Game Texas, a political advocacy organization that wants to raise the minimum wage for city employees and contractors to $15.
U.S. District Judge Randy Crane denied Edinburg’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on Tuesday, allowing the case against the city to continue for now.
The lawsuit was filed by Ground Game Texas, a statewide organization that advocates for progressive causes.
Earlier this year, Ground Game worked with LUPE Votes to collect signatures for a petition to raise the minimum wage for city employees and contractors to $15 an hour.
However, after it submitted the petition to the city, Edinburg City Secretary Clarice Y. Balderas rejected it, telling the city council that the petition did not meet requirements set in the city charter.
Among the requirements was that the people circulating the petition to collect signatures had to be registered to vote in the city of Edinburg and had to be part of a five-member committee that had been formed for purposes of circulating the petition.
For this petition, though, Ground Game hired two field organizers who were not Edinburg voters to collect signatures.
In the lawsuit, which was filed in June, Ground Game argued that the city’s requirement that the petition circulators be Edinburg voters was unconstitutional as it violated the organization’s First Amendment rights.
The city, in its motion for judgment on the pleadings, argued three things:
>> Ground Game did not have standing to sue because its not from Edinburg and cannot sue on behalf of city employees.
>> The $15 minimum wage proposal would require “appropriation,” or an allocation of funds, which is not allowed by the charter.
>> The requirement limiting petition circulators to Edinburg voters was constitutional.
In his order denying the city’s motion, the judge said Ground Game does have standing to sue because it is arguing for its free speech rights to petition the city.
“In this case, (Ground Game) does not assert a vague harm to the rights of Edinburg residents; it asserts an injury to its own right to circulate petitions,” the order stated.
When looking at whether the petition would require an “appropriation” of funds, the judge looked at the meaning of the word.
“If the phrase refers to any ordinance related to monetary disbursements by the City of Edinburg, then it is likely that (Ground Game’s) petition is included,” Crane wrote. “If, however, the phrase refers instead to ordinances that specifically designate funds and require the City to spend those funds in a particular manner, then (Ground Game’s) petition is likely not included in the definition, as it does not expressly require the City to make any additional expenditures at all.”
Citing a Texas Supreme Court case from 1937, the judge wrote that it was “sufficient to determine that an ‘appropriation ordinance’ requires some specific allocation of money, rather than any policy changes that may have the effect of requiring the city to spend money.”
As for whether the city’s limit on who can circulate the petition is constitutional or not, the judge found that Ground Game had sufficiently shown it was limited of its First Amendment rights, while the city had not yet shown how the city was justified in setting that limit.
On Monday, Ground Game filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the judge to rule in its favor and allow the minimum wage initiative to move forward.
During a hearing Wednesday, Crane rescheduled the initial conference in the case to January, allowing the city time to respond to Ground Game’s motion or to file a cross-motion for summary judgment.
