Dallas voters approved Proposition S in November 2024, giving residents a new legal tool to hold City Hall accountable when officials allegedly fail to follow the city’s charter, ordinances, or Texas law. Nearly two years later, lawsuits involving police funding, historic preservation, and municipal enforcement are testing how much authority that voter-approved amendment provides.
A total of 197,523 Dallas voters, or 55.04% of those voting on the measure, supported Proposition S on November 5, 2024.
The citizen-led measure was intended to provide residents with a direct path to court, but recent appellate decisions have left its broader legal validity unresolved. Questions also remain about whether lawsuits will result in enforceable changes at City Hall and how much defending those cases will cost taxpayers.
What Dallas Voters Approved
Proposition S originated with Dallas HERO, a citizen-led organization that collected signatures to place government accountability and public safety amendments on the November 2024 ballot.
The amendment passed with 197,523 votes in favor and 161,329 against, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
The City Council formally certified the election results November 19, 2024.
Proposition S added Chapter XXV, titled Citizen Enforcement, to the Dallas City Charter.
Its central provision grants Dallas residents standing to sue the city to require compliance with the charter, city ordinances, or state law.
The amendment also attempts to waive the city’s governmental immunity, a legal protection that generally shields government entities from certain lawsuits.
In practical terms, Proposition S was intended to give citizens a means of enforcing existing legal requirements without relying exclusively on complaints to city officials.
The Dallas Express previously covered legislative efforts to restrict the amendment after voters approved it.
What Citizens Can And Cannot Do
Under the adopted charter language, a qualifying Dallas resident may bring a lawsuit alleging that the city has violated a specific legal requirement.
The amendment authorizes two principal forms of relief:
Declaratory relief allows a judge to determine whether the city has violated an applicable law or charter provision.
Injunctive relief allows a judge to order the city to perform a required action or stop unlawful conduct.
The amendment also provides for recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs if a judge grants declaratory or injunctive relief.
However, Proposition S does not give residents unlimited authority to sue successfully over every disagreement with City Hall. Dissatisfaction with an elected official, budget decision, or city policy does not automatically establish a legal violation.
The amendment does not itself authorize residents to remove elected officials, impose criminal penalties, or recover compensation for personal grievances.
It also requires claimants to notify the city at least 60 days before filing a lawsuit under Proposition S.
The notice must reasonably identify the charter provision, ordinance, or Texas law that the claimant believes has been or may be violated.
The amendment defines residents broadly. In addition to individuals living in Dallas, certain businesses, nonprofit organizations, associations, and other entities physically located in or conducting business within the city may qualify.
Police Funding Lawsuit Tests Voter-Approved Requirements
One of the most significant legal challenges involving Proposition S concerns another voter-approved amendment: Proposition U.
On February 13, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the City of Dallas, City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert, and Chief Financial Officer Jack Ireland Jr., alleging failure to comply with mandatory public safety funding requirements.
Proposition U, approved during the same November 2024 election, requires Dallas to direct specified excess revenue toward police and fire pensions, police compensation, and staffing.
It also establishes a police staffing objective of at least 4,000 officers and requires annual independent compensation surveys.
Two Dallas residents, Jeff Hauschild and Matt Trammell, joined Paxton’s lawsuit.
Their original petition invokes Proposition S as a basis for their authority to seek enforcement of the city’s charter obligations.
The plaintiffs allege that Dallas improperly calculated revenue available for public safety spending.
According to the attorney general’s office, the city’s projected excess revenue for fiscal year 2025-2026 was approximately $220 million, while officials calculated approximately $61 million.
The plaintiffs also allege that Dallas failed to obtain the independent police compensation survey required under Proposition U.
Those allegations remain disputed and should not be treated as established violations.
Although Proposition U provides the requirements at issue, Proposition S is important because the residents are relying on it to pursue judicial enforcement.
City Hall Preservation Lawsuit Invokes Proposition S
Another significant lawsuit concerns the future of Dallas City Hall.
On August 12, 2026, the Save Dallas City Hall Coalition filed a verified petition alleging that Dallas officials failed to comply with historic-preservation requirements involving the I.M. Pei-designed municipal building.
The coalition’s petition names the city, Mayor Eric Johnson, City Council members, and senior administrators in their official capacities.
The organization alleges that officials failed to carry out certain preservation and maintenance responsibilities while considering the building’s future.
The coalition submitted a Proposition S notice May 12, 2026, before filing suit.
Its legal action seeks court orders addressing alleged failures to comply with existing requirements rather than compensatory or punitive damages.
The Dallas Express previously reported on the allegations, including water intrusion, drainage problems, garage deterioration, and concerns involving building systems.
Courts Are Already Defining Proposition S’s Limits
Two appellate decisions in 2026 demonstrate that invoking Proposition S does not guarantee a successful lawsuit.
In Sarno v. Board of Adjustment for the City of Dallas, a dispute involving a church recreational court and neighboring homeowners, the Fifth Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of certain claims against the city.
The June 17 opinion found that the plaintiffs had not adequately established claims supporting the relief they sought.
The court also examined whether officials had failed to perform mandatory legal duties or acted outside their lawful authority.
The judges determined that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently established those grounds.
The ruling did not strike down Proposition S. Instead, the court resolved the appeal without deciding whether the amendment’s attempted waiver of governmental immunity is legally valid.
A second decision followed August 12 in Coaster Line-Coaster Club Inc. v. City of Dallas.
The case involved Tiger Cabaret’s challenge to the revocation of its sexually oriented business license.
The company invoked Proposition S after its original litigation began.
The appellate court upheld dismissal of its declaratory judgment claim, concluding that the business had not established a sufficient jurisdictional basis for that claim.
However, the judges reversed a separate ruling involving the legal standard used to review the license revocation.
The court again declined to determine whether Proposition S’ waiver of governmental immunity is constitutionally valid.
Neither appellate decision invalidated the voter-approved amendment.
Instead, both demonstrate that residents must identify enforceable legal obligations and satisfy judicial requirements before obtaining relief.
Who Pays When Citizens Sue Dallas?
Proposition S also raises financial questions involving taxpayer dollars.
Residents who bring lawsuits must arrange their own legal representation and initial litigation funding, whether personally, through an organization, or under another lawful arrangement.
The amendment does not provide government-funded attorneys to residents wishing to sue City Hall.
However, Chapter XXV allows qualifying plaintiffs to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs if a judge grants declaratory or injunctive relief.
The city, meanwhile, must pay for its own legal defense.
Those expenses may include city attorney staff time, outside law firms, and other litigation-related costs.
In a November 19, 2024, statement, Dallas acknowledged voters’ desire for accountability while warning that Proposition S could increase legal expenses.
Then-Interim City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert said that “The resulting legal costs and administrative demands will divert resources from critical city services such as public safety, infrastructure improvements, and community programs.”
The city also stated that it would vigorously defend lawsuits brought under the amendment.
That position creates a taxpayer-accountability question.
Dallas residents approved Proposition S to help enforce city compliance with existing laws. The city also has the right to defend its legal interpretation and contest allegations it believes are unfounded.
But legal disputes can involve taxpayer-funded defense costs, and a successful claimant may also obtain an award of qualifying attorney’s fees.
A comprehensive accounting of taxpayer dollars spent specifically defending Proposition S claims could not be established from the public records reviewed for this report. As such, the actual financial impact remains unresolved.
Will Proposition S Hold City Hall Accountable?
The answer ultimately depends on how courts interpret and enforce the amendment.
Dallas voters approved a charter provision intended to give qualifying residents a direct legal means of requiring the city to comply with applicable laws.
That authority is now being tested in cases involving police funding, historic preservation, and other municipal decisions.
The appellate rulings establish that merely citing Proposition S does not guarantee judicial relief.
They also leave unresolved the broader question of whether the city charter can validly waive governmental immunity as Proposition S attempts to do.
At the same time, the lawsuits demonstrate that residents are exercising the legal authority voters sought to establish.
Nearly two years after 197,523 voters approved Proposition S, important questions remain about its implementation.
Have residents successfully compelled changes in city operations? Will courts uphold the amendment’s central enforcement mechanism? How much taxpayer money is being spent defending the city against these claims?
The answers will help determine whether Proposition S delivers the legal accountability voters intended when they approved the amendment in November 2024.
Provided by Dallas Express
