Dallas is facing a legal challenge from the state’s Attorney General, Ken Paxton, over allegations of insufficient funding for its police department. The lawsuit, filed , centers on the city’s compliance with Proposition U, a voter-approved charter amendment designed to bolster law enforcement resources.
Proposition U, passed by Dallas voters in after a citizen petition garnered over 160,000 signatures, mandates specific funding allocations and staffing levels for the Dallas Police Department. The core requirements include maintaining at least 4,000 full-time sworn officers and directing a significant portion of any new city revenue towards police and fire pensions.
According to the lawsuit, the City of Dallas, along with City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert and Chief Financial Officer Jack Ireland Jr., failed to accurately calculate excess revenue and, did not meet the funding mandates outlined in Proposition U. Paxton alleges that the city underreported the amount of excess revenue available for public safety initiatives, specifically claiming the city identified approximately $61 million in excess revenue when it should have been $220 million.
The charter amendment stipulates that at least 50% of any excess annual revenue must be appropriated to the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, with the amount determined by either the State Pension Review Board or the City Council, whichever is higher. The remaining funds are to be used for increasing the number of police officers to at least 4,000 and ensuring competitive starting salaries for new recruits – ranking within the top five of comparable departments in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
Currently, the city’s projected police force falls short of the 4,000-officer requirement by 576 positions, even with planned hiring for the fiscal year. This shortfall is a key point of contention in Paxton’s lawsuit, which argues that the city is not prioritizing public safety as intended by voters.
The legal action arrives as Paxton is actively campaigning for the U.S. Senate, challenging incumbent John Cornyn in the Republican primary scheduled for . The timing of the lawsuit has drawn attention, with some observers suggesting a political dimension to the case. However, Paxton maintains that the lawsuit is solely focused on ensuring the city adheres to the will of its voters and adequately funds law enforcement.
“When voters demand more funding for law enforcement, local officials must immediately comply,” Paxton stated in a press release. “I filed this lawsuit to ensure that the City of Dallas fully funds law enforcement, upholds public safety, and is accountable to its constituents.” He further emphasized the importance of supporting law enforcement officers “defending law and order in our communities,” particularly in light of what he described as increasing attacks against them.
The lawsuit also alleges that Dallas failed to engage an independent third-party firm to conduct an annual survey of police officer compensation, as required by Proposition U. This survey is intended to ensure that Dallas police officer salaries remain competitive with those in neighboring counties – Dallas, Collin, Tarrant, Denton, and Rockwall – with populations exceeding 50,000.
Despite the lawsuit, the City of Dallas has taken some steps to address the requirements of Proposition U. In , the city council approved a 30-year, $11 billion pension funding plan for the police department, signaling an attempt to comply with the financial obligations outlined in the charter amendment.
The case highlights a growing tension between local governance and state-level oversight regarding public safety funding. Proposition U itself was a direct response to concerns about crime and public disorder in Dallas, fueled by a citizen-led effort to mandate increased investment in law enforcement. The lawsuit represents a significant escalation in this debate, with the outcome potentially setting a precedent for how similar charter amendments are implemented and enforced across Texas.
The legal battle is expected to be closely watched by both proponents and critics of Proposition U, as well as by other cities in Texas considering similar measures. The outcome will likely have implications for the allocation of public funds and the future of law enforcement funding in the state.
