City of Houston Anti-Discrimination HERO Veto Referendum, Proposition 1 (November 2015)

Voting on LGBT Issues
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local LGBT County responses to Obergefell v. Hodges

A referendum on the anti-discrimination ordinance known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) was on the ballot for Houston voters in Harris County, Texas, on November 3, 2015. It was defeated.

In May 2014, with Mayor Annise Parker’s backing, the Houston City Council passed the ordinance targeted by this veto referendum in an 11-6 vote. The ordinance, which was on the ballot as Proposition 1, would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—criteria not covered by federal anti-discrimination laws—especially "in city employment, city services, city contracting practices, housing, public accommodations, and private employment." The ordinance would have also made prohibitions against discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, genetic information and pregnancy explicit in the city's code. Discrimination based on these characteristics was already prohibited by federal law.

The ordinance was designed to exempt religious institutions and organizations from compliance.

The law would have made it a Class C misdemeanor to violate the ordinance and would have dictated a fine of between $250 and $500 for each violation. The ordinance was designed to count each day or part-day that "a violation is committed, continued, or permitted" as a separate violation. It would have set a cap of $5,000 on the total amount of fines that could be imposed for the same complaint and victim.

On the same day Houston voters decided Proposition 1, they also decided between 13 candidates running to take the place of Mayor Annise Parker, who was term-limited. Houston voters also elected 11 district council members and filled five at-large seats. Incumbents in districts D, E and K ran unopposed, but the remaining council seats were contested. A runoff election took place on December 12, 2015, for the races in which one candidate did not receive a majority of votes.

Election results

Houston, Proposition 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		157,110	60.97%
Yes		100,582	39.03%

Election results from Harris County Elections Office

Final election results showed a voter turnout of 27.45 percent. This was the highest turnout in a city election since the 2003 mayoral election, according to the Houston Chronicle. In fact, the city had not seen a voter turnout above 20 percent since the 2003 election.

Responses

The results of the vote were called in favor of the veto less than 45 minutes after polls closed on election night.

Opponents of the ordinance celebrated the results at an election night party in a Houston hotel. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick addressed the crowd:

“	It was about protecting our grandmoms, and our mothers and our wives and our sisters and our daughters and our granddaughters. I’m glad Houston led tonight to end this constant political-correctness attack on what we know in our heart and our gut as Americans is not right.	”
—Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick

Patrick also released a public statement on the results of the election:

“	I want to thank the voters in the City of Houston for turning out in record numbers to defeat Houston Prop 1 – the bathroom ordinance. The voters clearly understand that this proposition was never about equality – that is already the law. It was about allowing men to enter women’s restrooms and locker rooms – defying common sense and common decency.	”
—Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick

Pro-HERO group Houston Unites released their own statement in response to the election results:

Total campaign cash as of December 4, 2015
Support:	$1,918,552.01
Opposition:	$398,471.76

“	We are disappointed with today's outcome, but our work to secure nondiscrimination protections for all hard-working Houstonians will continue. No one should have to live with the specter of discrimination hanging over them. Everyone should have the freedom to work hard, earn a decent living and provide for themselves and their families. Although Houston won't yet join the 200 other cities that have similar nondiscrimination measures, the fight continues. We will continue telling the stories of Houstonians whose lives would be better off because of HERO – including people of color, people of faith, veterans who have served our country, women, and gay and transgender people. We've learned some important lessons, as well. We have to continue sharing our stories so that more Houstonians know what HERO is really about and aren't susceptible to the ugliest of smear campaigns run by the opposition. And we must remember that all of us are stronger when we stand together, speaking up with one voice for protections like those in HERO, rather than allowing those who oppose fairness and equality to divide us.	”
—Houston Unites

Kris Hayashi, the executive director of Transgender Law Center, also made a public statement, attributing the election results to what she described as deceptive campaign tactics:

“	As visibility and understanding of transgender people and issues increase, a small group of extremists are using lies and scare tactics to try to turn back the tide of acceptance. They won by mounting an ugly and deceptive campaign in Houston, and no doubt they will try it again in California and other parts of the country. Despite these efforts and today's vote, more and more people are recognizing transgender people for who we truly are — neighbors, co-workers, family members, and friends.	”
—Kris Hayashi, executive director of Transgender Law Center

Text of measure

Ballot question

The following question appeared on the ballot:

“

Are you in favor of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, Ord. No. 2014-530, which prohibits discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual’s sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy?

”

The final ballot question was drafted and approved by the city after the state supreme court ruled the city had erred with the initially proposed ballot language that asked if voters wanted to repeal the ordinance, rather than asking if they were in favor of it. For details, see the section about the ballot question lawsuit below.

Full text

The full text of the HERO ordinance is available here.

Support

Supporters

Houston Unites campaign logo

A campaign called Houston Unites was started to urge voters to support the targeted ordinance.

Houston Unites was a coalition of individuals and organizations, and the contributors and supporters of the campaign included:

• ACLU of Texas
• Equality Texas
• Freedom For All Americans
• the Human Rights Campaign
• NAACP Houston Branch
• the Texas Freedom Network

Mayor Annise Parker, who was one of the first lesbian mayors of a major U.S. city, introduced and backed the HERO ordinance.

The president and CEO of the Greater Houston Partnership, Bob Harvey, announced that the organization of more than 1,200 companies in 11 southeast Texas counties endorsed a "yes" vote on Proposition 1.

Arguments in favor

When the ordinance was initially approved by the Houston City Council, Parker, referring to the wide range of discrimination prohibited by the ordinance, said, "While much of the debate has centered around the gay and transgender section of the ordinance, it is a comprehensive ordinance. It is a good step forward for the city of Houston."

When signatures were submitted for the veto referendum petition that forced the HERO ordinance onto the ballot, Parker made the following statement:

“	This was not a narrowly-focused, special-interest ordinance. This is something that the business and civic community of Houston was firmly behind, and we fully expect if there is a campaign that it will be a spirited campaign, but we'll have the same outcome in November as we had around the council table. Houston does not discriminate, Houston will not discriminate and Houston will not be fooled by misinformation, hyperbole - I would use the word 'lies' but I'm going to back off from that - and people who are just simply unwilling to read the ordinance for themselves.	”
—Mayor Annise Parker

Responding to claims from opponents of the ordinance that it would protect sexual predators by allowing men to enter women's restrooms, Parker said, "It is illegal today to go into a place of public accommodation for the intent of committing a crime. It was illegal before, it's going to be illegal after."

The Texas Leftist published an article pointing out that anti-discrimination ordinances like Houston's HERO ordinance existed in many other cities besides Houston. The website gave a list of cities with similar ordinances here. Moreover, Media Matters contacted multiple city officials in Austin, Dallas and El Paso and asked: "Have gender identity/transgender public accommodations protections resulted in increased sexual assault or rape in women's restrooms? Has [CITY] encountered any other problems as a result of such protections?" The article published by Media Matters reported negative responses from all three cities. Supporters of Proposition 1 argued that this report shows that anti-discrimination ordinances for members of the LGBT community do not cause an increase in crimes committed in women's restrooms. The article from Media Matters also stated, "Law enforcement officials, victims' rights advocates, and human rights commission officials in states and localities with transgender non-discrimination protections have debunked the claim that sexual predators will exploit non-discrimination laws, calling it 'beyond specious.'"

Houston Unites, "Faith Leaders Endorse YES on Houston's Proposition 1," September 24, 2015

The following arguments supporting the ordinance and urging a "yes" vote on Proposition 1 were taken from the Houston Unites website:

“	DISCRIMINATION HAS NO PLACE IN HOUSTON Houston Unites is the coalition working to elevate the diversity of voices supporting HERO. No Houstonian should be discriminated against based on race, age, military status, sexual orientation or gender identity. That's a core value Houstonians share, and that's why HERO's passage a year ago was supported by more than 80 current and former elected officials, community and non-profit organizations, major corporations, and more than 70 local faith leaders.	”
—Houston Unites

Matt McTighe, the campaign manager for Freedom for All Americans, said, “It [Proposition 1] has the potential to really show our continued momentum in the fourth largest city in the country, or potentially present a real hurdle for us as we look for more proactive non-discrimination efforts in states that are largely in the South, the Midwest, where we’re looking for places to advance non-discrimination ordinances like what was at the city level in Houston.”

In a campaign ad aired by Houston Unites, Rev. Will Reed, pastor at Servants of Christ United Methodist Church, said, “As Christians, my wife and I believe in treating others the way we want to be treated, that’s what we’ve taught our children. We’re hearing about HERO – Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance, and concerns some have raised about privacy in public bathrooms. What’s being lost is that it’s already illegal to go into a bathroom to harm or harass someone. This law won’t change that.”

Campaign finance

According to reports submitted on December 4, 2015, committees filed in support of Proposition 1 collected nearly $2 million in contributions to the "yes" campaign in favor of the HERO ordinance.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Houston Unites Against Discrimination	$1,706,988.03	$1,344,518.28
Human Rights Campaign Houston Equal Rights PAC	$186,063.98	$192,784.00
Equal Rights Houston Committee	$10,000.00	$37,430.76
Business Coalition for Prop. 1	$15,500.00	$87,260.00
Total	$1,918,552.01	$1,661,993.04

Opposition

Campaign for Houston graphic

Opponents

The chief opposition and the veto referendum petition against the HERO ordinance was organized by the Houston branch of the U.S. Pastor Council.

A group called Campaign for Houston was formed to urge voters to reject the ordinance.

Arguments against

Opponents argued that the ordinance's provisions concerning transgender people could harbor sexual predators by permitting men to enter women's restrooms. Critics called the HERO ordinance the "Sexual Predator Protection Act."

Rev. Max Miller, a member of the Baptist Ministers Association of Houston and Vicinity who was involved in the referendum signature campaign, said, "We're standing up to protect our women and our children."

The following arguments against the HERO ordinance were taken from the Campaign for Houston website:

“	Campaign for Houston is made up of parents and family members who do not want their daughters, sisters or mothers forced to share restrooms in public facilities with gender-confused men, who – under this ordinance – can call themselves “women” on a whim and use women’s restrooms whenever they wish. This “bathroom ordinance” therefore is an attempt to re-structure society to fit a societal vision we simply do not share or can support. The ordinance also limits free speech and religious expression in unprecedented ways so as to not “offend” these two new “protected” groups, both of which are defined by their behaviors - not by characteristics given to them at birth.	”
—Campaign for Houston

A campaign ad aired by Campaign for Houston said, “This ordinance will allow men to freely go into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. That is filthy, that is disgusting and that is unsafe.”

Campaign advertisements

Campaign for Houston, "Lance Berkman No on Prop. 1," September 28, 2015

Campaign for Houston, "Radio Spot - Rashinique," September 15, 2015

Campaign for Houston, "Behind the Scenes with Herlinda Garcia," September 21, 2015

Campaign finance

According to campaign finance reports due on December 4, 2015, the committees filed in opposition to Proposition 1 received about $400,000 in contributions and spent nearly $600,000 in opposition to Proposition 1.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Campaign For Houston	$378,893.13	$582,254.09
No on Houston Prop 1	$19,578.63	$14,175.79
Total	$398,471.76	$596,429.88

Mayoral candidate positions

The issue of HERO was brought up during a mayoral candidate forum on September 12, 2015, hosted by the Emerging Latino Leaders Fellowship. Chris Bell, Adrian Garcia, Sylvester Turner and Marty McVey supported passage of HERO during the forum. Stephen C. Costello and Bill King did not attend the forum but expressed their support for HERO in other venues. Ben Hall was the only major candidate to oppose HERO. Several quotes from candidates at the forum are below:

Candidate comments on HERO from September 12 forum.

Adrian Garcia Garcia discussed LGBT policies created during his time as sheriff by way of explaining his support for HERO. "Everybody here that is willing to work hard, play by the rules and contribute to the success of our city ought to be respected, supported, protected and well served and I believe HERO does that." Ben Hall Hall criticized HERO's lack of precision as a reason to oppose the measure. "I know better than any of these candidates what discrimination is. I also know what the law requires...I oppose the HERO ordinance because it is a dangerous and bad law. It has an imprecise definition of male and female, therefore it makes people have to turn into gender police." Marty McVey McVey pointed to current employment law's blind spots when expressing support for HERO. "Over 200 cities across the country have similar ordinances...By voting no on HERO, you are unprotecting 13 classes of people which includes veterans, pregnancy, women, people of color. This is access to equal justice. This law allows complaints to be heard in a municipal court."

The following statements came from candidates who were not quoted in news stories about the forum but made earlier statements about HERO:

Additional candidate comments on HERO

Chris Bell “ I strongly believe that a law protecting the rights of all Houstonians is something that we need. The Texas Supreme Court's ruling today on the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance will likely place that vote on the ballot for this November. I want to urge all Houstonians to support equality and non-discrimination for all people, and I intend to take that message to every part of Houston. Houston is a diverse city and we succeed when all our citizens have equal protection under the law. ” —Chris Bell, (2015), Bill King In an interview with Houston Matters, King cited concerns about HERO quoted below but did not express opposition to the ordinance out of concern that rejection of the ordinance would send the wrong message about the city. “ Well, I find it very disappointing we're at this particular point in the city's history. I'm afraid we're in for a very divisive fight and I just don't think we needed to be here. This is not a city that hates. This is not a city that discriminates against people. This is one of the most open, welcoming cities there is in America. Nobody in their right mind is in favor of discrimination. If we were being asked to vote on whether we favor discrimination, it would be clear what everyone's opinion would be. We are being asked to vote on a particular 36-page ordinance and a lot of people including myself have problems with this particular ordinance...It's unlike any other non-discrimination ordinance that I could find anyplace in the country, it's a very different ordinance. For example, it has a definition of discrimination to give an advantage or a disadvantage to one of the protected classes...So, veterans are protected under this. If you read this ordinance literally, giving an advantage to a veteran is illegal under the ordinance. Wal-Mart's program to give preference to hiring veterans is illegal under this ordinance. And then, of course, you have the whole issue of sex-segregated facilities. Most of the ordinances have a specific exception for sex-segregated facilities. This one makes any kind of sex-segregated facility illegal. ” —Bill King, (2015), Stephen Costello In an interview with Houston Matters, Costello noted that he voted twice for HERO in the city council including a vote after a lawsuit challenging the ordinance. Here is an excerpt of his response to a question about HERO: “ As a businessman, a father, a grandfather of two lovely granddaughters, I support this ordinance. However, that being said, I'm pleased that Houstonians will have the ability and the right to vote on the ordinance and I'm confident that the community will make the right decision ” —Steve Costello, (2015), Sylvester Turner “ I support the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance and am confident that voters will uphold the ordinance. Houston is strongest when we work hard, work together, respect each other’s differences and always put the good of the community first. ” —Sylvester Turner, (2015),

Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

Background

In 1985, Houston voters rejected two proposals designed to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians. In 2001, the city voters approved a ban against granting employment benefits, such as health insurance, to unmarried domestic partners of city employees.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Texas

Ordinance approval and referendum petition

On May 28, 2014, with Mayor Annise Parker’s backing, the Houston City Council voted 11-6 to enact the HERO ordinance.

Shortly thereafter, opponents of HERO drafted a petition and began gathering signatures to add a ballot measure to the November 2014 ballot to repeal the ordinance. City law required 17,296 valid signatures from registered Houston voters for a successful veto referendum petition, which would require the city council to either rescind the targeted ordinance themselves or put it before voters. This requirement was calculated by taking 10 percent of the greatest number of votes cast for mayor in any of the three preceding years. Moreover, signatures had to be submitted before the ordinance was scheduled to take effect or within 30 days of the publication of the approved ordinance, whichever came first. Opponents of HERO presented about 50,000 signatures to the Houston city secretary’s office on July 3, 2014.

City attorney's decision and subsequent lawsuit

Although the city secretary found enough valid signatures to make the petition sufficient, the city attorney advised her of certain problems with enough of the petition sheets to invalidate the petition. These problems included signature gatherers who were not registered to vote and petition sheets that were not signed by the signature gatherer responsible for them, as well as other, more technical problems. In reaction, the groups supporting the repeal of the ordinance filed a lawsuit against the city.

Subpoenas

Attorneys representing the city of Houston responded to the lawsuit by HERO opponents by issuing subpoenas for the sermons of five local pastors, who were not party to the lawsuit against the city but were involved with gathering signatures for the veto referendum measure. The subpoenas requested, among other things, "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity."

The subpoenas attracted national attention. Several public figures and media outlets called them attacks on religious liberty. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R), for example, said, "the City of Houston’s subpoenas demanding that pastors provide the government with copies of their sermons is both shocking and shameful. For far too long, the federal government has led an assault against religious liberty, and now, sadly, my hometown of Houston is joining the fight. This is wrong. It’s unbefitting of Texans, and it’s un-American." In a similar vein, Breitbart.com covered the story with the headline: "Religious Liberty under attack as City of Houston subpoenas Church Sermons."

Houston City Attorney David Feldman, on the other hand, defended the subpoenas, saying, "We’re certainly entitled to inquire about the communications that took place in the churches regarding the ordinance and the petitions because that’s where they chose to do it. It’s relevant to know what representations and instructions were given regarding these petitions." Carlos Maza of MediaMatters.org echoed Feldman, saying, "claims that religious liberty should keep the pastors' public addresses secret ignores the fact that subpoenas of parties relevant to a lawsuit are a typical part of the legal discovery process."

Initially, Mayor Parker, too, argued that the subpoenas were fully justified. In a tweet from October 15, 2014, she said, "If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game. Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition?" But two days later, she called the original language of the subpoenas "broad" and noted, "We don't need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston, and it was never the intention of the city of Houston to intrude on any matters of faith or to get between a pastor and their parishioners. We don't want their sermons, we want the instructions on the petition process. That's always what we wanted and, again, they knew that's what we wanted because that's the subject of the lawsuit."

In mid-October, at Parker’s urging, the city narrowed the language and scope of the subpoenas by removing the word "sermons" and requesting only documents and materials relevant to the gathering of signatures. This was followed by Parker's decision to drop the subpoenas entirely on October 29, 2014.

Trial

The lawsuit went to trial on January 19, 2015.

Feldman announced on December 19, 2014, his plans to resign from his position as Houston City Attorney shortly before the trial began. He said that the primary reason for his resignation was a desire to return to private practice. He also noted, however, that his decision to resign was related to the lawsuit as well, saying, "Being on the outside, I'm going to be a lot freer to tell the story and to explain it to people and to debunk the myth. There's also the question of the process that was followed. These guys are saying we somehow interfered and didn't have the right do it. I need to explain what it means to be city attorney and the ethical obligation I have to the city to make sure the ordinance is enforced." As reported by the Houston Chronicle, Feldman noted, too, that if he testified in the trial as the city attorney, it would prohibit other attorneys from the city's legal department from serving as counsel for the city.

On February 13, 2015, a jury issued a verdict saying that while the petitions did not contain instances of fraud, they did contain forgeries and instances of failure to follow proper procedure. District Judge Robert Schaffer then initiated a recounting process to determine whether or not opponents of HERO had gathered enough valid signatures to satisfy the threshold of 17,296.

Following the verdict in February, both sides claimed victory. A definitive answer, however, did not emerge until Judge Schaffer's ruling on April 17, 2015, when he determined that the opponents of the ordinance had not gathered enough valid signatures.

Supreme Court ruling

In May 2015, opponents of the ordinance appealed Shaffer's ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. On July 24, 2015, the court ruled that the Houston City Council should have honored the city secretary's initial signature count and must either repeal the ordinance or include it on the November 2015 ballot, writing in a per curiam opinion, "We agree ... that the city secretary certified their petition and thereby invoked the city council's ministerial duty to reconsider and repeal the ordinance or submit it to popular vote. The legislative power reserved to the people of Houston is not being honored."

Ballot question lawsuit

Status: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring changes to the initial ballot language.

Initially, the city proposed the following question for the ballot:

“

Shall the City of Houston repeal the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, Ord. No. 2014-530, which prohibits discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual's sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy?

”

Opponents of the ordinance backing the referendum petition, however, filed a lawsuit against the mayor and the city concerning the original ballot language crafted by city officials. Plaintiffs argued that the city charter required a summary and the following options for voters on the ballot: "for the ordinance" or "against the ordinance," rather than the question asking voters if they wished to repeal the ordinance constructed by city officials. The state supreme court ruled on August 19, 2015, that the city had erred and needed to change the ballot question.

The plaintiffs argued that the city, with the mayor's influence, manipulated the ballot language to confuse voters. At stake was whether a positive vote would be in favor of the ordinance and against its repeal or against the ordinance and in favor of its repeal. Andy Taylor, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the city's initial ballot language made "a no vote a yes, and a yes vote a no.” The lawsuit also argued that the HERO ordinance was suspended by the veto referendum petition, making the use of the word "repeal" inaccurate and confusing.

Section 5 of Article VII-B of the city charter prescribes the form of the ballot question to be used for a ballot item prompted by a successful veto referendum or initiative petition. Section 5, which is entitled Form of Ballots, says:

“	The ballots used when voting upon such proposed and referred ordinances, resolutions or measures shall set forth their nature sufficiently to identify them, and shall also set forth upon separate lines the words "For the Ordinance" and "Against the Ordinance", or "For the Resolution" or "Against the Resolution."	”
—Houston City Charter

Responding to the lawsuit, Mayor Parker said, "They apparently don't trust the voters to figure out how to read 'do you want to repeal, yes or no.' This is a frustrating situation for me but I know that we are following the law in the city of Houston." Parker also claimed that the language complied with the city charter and a state supreme court ruling from 1997, which gave the city discretion over the ballot language for a referendum. Parker concluded, "This lawsuit isn't about whether the ballot language is easy to understand or complies with the law. The pastors group is opposed to a Houston free of discrimination for all and will do anything they can to try to confuse the voters.”

Related measures

• Anchorage, Alaska, Proposition 1, Access to Public Bathrooms and Locker Rooms Based on Sex at Birth (April 2018) d
• City of Fayetteville "Civil Rights Administration" Ordinance Veto Referendum (December 2014) a
• City of Fayetteville LGBT "Uniform Civil Rights Protection Ordinance," Ordinance 5781 (September 2015) a
• Gainesville Transgender Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Referendum (2009) a
• Jacksonville, Florida, LGBT Anti-discrimination Referendum (2016) 
• Tampa, Florida, Amendment 16, City Employee Discrimination Prohibition (March 2019) 
• City of Pocatello Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression Discrimination Referendum, Proposition 1 (May 2014) d
• Kalamazoo Discrimination Protection for Gays Referendum (2009) a
• Traverse City Non-Discrimination Ordinance Question (November 2011) a
• City of Springfield Sexual Orientation and Transgender Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Veto Referendum, Question 1 (April 2015) a
• Bellefontaine, Ohio, Drag Performance Restrictions Initiative (November 2023) 
• City of Chattanooga Health Benefits for Domestic Partners Referendum (August 2014) d

Other elections

• Houston 2015 mayoral election
• Houston 2015 city council election

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Houston HERO referendum. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

City of Houston Anti-Discrimination HERO Veto Referendum, Proposition 1 (November 2015) - Google News

See also

• Local LGBT issues on the ballot
• Houston, Texas municipal elections, 2015
• November 3, 2015 ballot measures in Texas
• Harris County, Texas ballot measures

External links

Suggest a link

Basic info

• Harris County Elections Office website
• Houston City Elections Office website

Support

• Houston Unites website, Facebook page, Twitter account and Youtube channel

Opposition

• Houston branch of the U.S. Pastor Council website and Facebook page
• Campaign for Houston website, Facebook page and Youtube channel