But, in a city that has made its will clear, that’ll be an uphill battle

Six months ago, the Austin Police Assoc­i­ation launched a deceptive campaign to undermine efforts at strengthening civilian oversight of the Austin Police Department – but Saturday, May 6, Austin voters served up the first of several losses the union has endured in the past week over that effort.

First, the election. Across the three­-county region that encompasses the Austin electorate (Travis, Williamson, and Hays counties), a total of 53,241 people voted in favor of Prop A, the original version of the Austin Police Oversight Act supported by progressive leaders and groups pushing for stronger police oversight. Just 13,927 people voted against Prop A and even fewer people – 12,948 in total – voted for Prop B, the deceptive version of the act pushed by the Austin Police Association, which used much of the same language as Prop A but edited the text to gut it. The WilCo margins were a little tighter, but both the For A and Against B sides cleared 60% of the vote.

In Travis County, where the bulk of Austin voters live, the police union was walloped – they lost both the Prop A and Prop B elections by roughly a 4-1 margin. Travis County turnout was 10%, about the share of voters that came out for the highly contentious May 2021 election that resulted in overturning the City Council-initiated ordinance changes that decriminalized homelessness. Opponents of stronger police oversight will point to the low turnout as evidence that Austin doesn't really want a more accountable and transparent police department, but with such a lopsided margin, it's difficult to envision a scenario where more ballots cast would have helped the APA side.

APA spent at least $300,000 of their political action committee's money on the campaign (about $287,000 on the deceptive petition drive that landed Prop B on the ballot and $15,000 campaigning for the ordinance), so the huge loss is striking. But APA's losses didn't end there. A few hours after the election was decided Saturday night, the union tweeted a defiant statement: "The APA simply will not stand by while this city and anti-police activists operate with blatant disregard for state law and the rights and protections afforded to our hardworking men and women," the union tweeted. APA leaders still want to negotiate a long-term labor contract, they wrote, but they "will not be forced back to the table under a structure in which a new city ordinance attempts to unlawfully interfere with the ... process." Twitter users responded with a severe "ratio" – the term used to describe a post that's heavily criticized in replies and quote tweets compared to support shown through "likes." As of Wednesday, the tweet generated 1,878 replies and 925 quote tweets but only 411 likes.

Though APA's Twitter embarrassment is much less significant than their loss at the ballot box, both signal the community's clear desire for stronger police oversight in Austin. As Council Member Chito Vela said in his own tweet statement, "[APA's] statement regarding last night's election results is unacceptable; it is inherently undemocratic and contemptuous of the 79% of Austin voters who supported strong police accountability/oversight." He added that Coun­cil is ready to pay Austin cops wages commensurate with the unprecedented levels of oversight the APOA would allow, but the union has to cooperate. Vela remains the only CM to have publicly responded to APA, but our sources say that other CMs were frustrated by the APA tweet and are increasingly fed up with the union position on oversight.

What Comes Next?

Advocates have long known that winning the May 6 election would be just one battle in the war against APA for stronger oversight. The next battlefronts will be at the Texas Capitol, where police reform advocates will work to defeat legislation aimed at preempting the APOA (meaning, newly created state laws that would trump the local ordinance and render it moot). Next is City Hall, where the city's unelected leaders will determine which parts of the APOA can be implemented under state law and which parts must be negotiated in a labor contact with APA. There, at the bargaining table, yet another battle will unfold.

Clear, emphatic public support for the APOA should communicate a mandate to interim City Manager Jesús Garza, the city's top unelected official, as well as to Mayor Kirk Watson and the 10 City Council members: Austin is ready for historic levels of police oversight. With that mandate in hand, oversight proponents should have a stronger hand to play in remaining battles.

Garza's position on the APOA remains unclear. Memos he issued on authority granted to the Office of Police Oversight when the city fell out of contract with APA show his interpretation of the city's oversight authority granted under state law to be fairly constrained, which is troubling to advocates. In a statement sent to the Chronicle on May 9, a city spokesperson said, "The City Manager's Office is working closely with the Austin Police Department, OPO, and the Law Department, to review what [parts of the APOA] may be implemented while abiding by state law, protecting the rights of our officers, and fulfilling the will of the voters."

We'll know more after May 16, when the election results are canvassed and parts of the APOA are implemented, but most of City Hall will be in standby mode until the Texas Legislature adjourns May 29. Senate Bill 2209 would prohibit the very concept of civilian-led police oversight in Texas, preempting virtually all of the APOA and taking down other oversight systems already in place in cities including Houston, Ft. Worth, and San Antonio. Since we last reported on SB 2209, the bill was broadened to target civilian police oversight carried out by professionalized municipal offices, such as Austin's OPO, as well as volunteer boards, such as Austin's Community Police Review Commission, which the original version of the bill targeted. Texas Senators approved the bill April 27 in a 20-11 vote.

But when the House's Urban Affairs Committee finally took up the bill May 8, they voted it down 2-7, dealing APA yet another, and perhaps most stunning, defeat in their campaign against stronger police oversight. The bill is dead for now, but in the Lege no bill is truly dead until sine die, so it could be revived and brought to the House floor for a vote. The committee did not deliberate on the bill, so it is unclear why lawmakers voted it down, but the vote suggests that oversight opponents face an uphill climb in their effort to defeat the APOA there.