did you know that sbisd is being sued?

PIPEline's Opinion of the Elizondo Lawsuit

In the federal lawsuit Virginia Elizondo versus Spring Branch ISD and its Board of Trustees, the plaintiff claims that the district's process to elect board members is racist.  It is motivated by a desire to gerrymander the district into sub-districts and provide community organizers with an easier path to pursue a progressive political agenda.  PIPEline rejects the plaintiff's radical argument and encourages the district to defend itself without reservation.  

PIPEline worked hard on the 2021 election of Chris Earnest, and we are confident the voters and the community paid close attention to the issues on which the candidates ran.  More voters elected Chris Earnest because of his promise to promote parent choice, transparency and open communication at the board level and removal of the progressive politics from our classrooms.  Additionally, SBISD voters turned out in record numbers to prevent a union-backed candidate (Ms. Elizondo) from being elected to the board because of the distrust of the union’s platforms.

Overview of the Case

On Friday, June 18, 2021, the Spring Branch Independent School District was sued in federal court by Virginia Elizondo, a past candidate for the SBISD Board of Trustees. Ms. Elizondo is seeking an immediate change to the system by which SBISD elects its Board of Trustees. You can read the filing here.

Ms. Elizondo is calling for the creation of "Single Member Districts," or SMDs, within SBISD. Creation of SMD's would disenfranchise almost 80,000 voters in SBISD because they would no longer be able to cast a vote for each candidate on the school board.  Instead of every voter in SBISD being able to vote for ALL SEVEN trustee positions (each with three-year terms) under our “at large” system with two or three positions elected every year, they want to divide the district into seven SMDs in which voters will only be able to vote for ONE trustee (who represents their smaller section of SBISD) ONCE every three years. 

Ms. Elizondo is calling for SBISD to suffer under the same governance structure as the failed Houston Independent School District (HISD). Sadly, HISD is a district which has been unable to select a superintendent for the last three years and is on the brink of being taken over by the State. HISD is not a district we should model ourselves after in any way whatsoever.

~ Save SBISD

Board Response To Lawsuit

Chris Earnest, Trustee Position 4, is the only board member who has publicly stated his support for SBISD's current at-large system. Although SBISD has posted this regarding the ongoing litigation, no other board members have stated their position on the matter.  The board says that they "will not be discussing this case outside of public meetings as befits the seriousness of this matter and in order to preserve strategy."  The board has allowed the public to comment on the lawsuit, however the district has not discussed the implications of changing to an SMD to the community.  In fact, because this matter has only been discussed by the trustees in closed session during board meetings, many voters within SBISD do not know about the lawsuit and how it might affect their representation and vote.  The district filed their response to the lawsuit on August 20, 2021.

Intervenor 

Unsatisfied with the district's approach to the lawsuit and secrecy surrounding it, parents continuously requested the board allow an intervenor to give them a seat at the table in the lawsuit.  The board declined this request and continues to deal privately with this legal matter that will impact every voter and student.

SBISD Attorney Representation

Thompson & Horton, the district's long-time attorney, withdrew from representing the district in the Elizondo lawsuit on December 6, 2021.  In their press release Thompson & Horton said they believe "the issues surrounding this lawsuit are very important and should be the focus of the community rather than who is legal counsel."  SBISD has announced they are now being represented by new counsel, Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd and Hullett, LLP of McKinney, Texas.

Plaintiff Request for Injunction 

In this filing on February 1st, the plaintiff's attorneys Barry Abrams and Martin Golando, request an injunction (delay) on the May 2022 elections until the current at-large system is removed, single member districts have been drawn and the lawsuit is resolved.  The board responded to this application for a preliminary injunction on February 15th - disagreeing about the need for single member districts, however agreeing that the election be delayed until November 2022.  Prior to the board's response to the preliminary injunction, the judge on the case, Judge Hoyt, granted the intervenor to participate as a non-party “amicus-curiae" or “friend of the court."  With this status, she was now able to file her own response to the preliminary injunction filing.  Her response was filed on February 16th.  In it, she  disagrees with both the plaintiff and the board and presents a strong case for continuing the May election as planned and approved by the board.  Following the amicus-curiae filing, on February 22nd the plaintiff filed an additional document in support of delaying the election.  

Current Status of the Lawsuit

Currently, the district, plaintiff and amicus await the judge's decision regarding the timing of the board election.  The original lawsuit hearing is on the judge’s docket call for June 6, at which time the judge will likely set the trial date. A trial could commence within a few weeks of that meeting.