Jefferson County Judge Gerald Robinson has filed an amended complaint against members of the Quorum Court, alleging that legislation they adopted in July was unconstitutional.
The complaint was filed Wednesday and names all 13 members of the county’s legislative body individually and in their official capacities as Justices of the Peace.
Robinson had previously filed suit against the quorum court over rules and procedures ordinances enacted by eight members which he said were also unconstitutional.
The latest ordinance, ordinance 2014-39 is titled “an ordinance to authorize signers for the Quorum Court Budged Fund 1000-17 for claims against the Jefferson County Quorum Court Budget.”
The lawsuit said that ordinance is also unconstitutional because it never passed out of committee. In addition, proper notice of the committee meeting was hot given.
Robinson said in the lawsuit that the ordinance was never given to him to sign and said “The Quorum Court cannot evade the County Judge’s veto powers by simply passing secret ordinances and waiting until the veto window is closed.”
State law provides that when an ordinance or amendment is adopted, it must be approved by the county judge within seven days unless vetoed and shall become law if not signed within seven days.
The lawsuit claims the ordinance “establishes a scheme whereby two members of the Quorum Court are to be elected by a simple majority vote to sign claims against the Quorum Court budget but there is no Quorum Court budget.”
It goes on to say that the Quorum Court appropriates funds to satisfy its needs from a fund under the County Judge’s budget.
The legislation also provides that the County Clerk to sign verified authorized claims against the Quorum Court budget, an authorization that the clerk does not have authority to do. Another provision says that no claim charged or submitted against the Quorum Court budget can be processed by the County Clerk, County Judge or Treasurer without an authorized signature from the designed signer on said claim.
“This provision creates a line-item veto power in the Quorum Court’s so-called signers that is contrary to law,” the suit claimed.
