A judge sided with the city of Austin in a dispute over the expansion of the Austin Convention Center, allowing the project to move forward as planned.
The lawsuit was filed in December by the Austin United Political Action Committee and went before Travis County District Judge Jessica Mangrum in January. Mangrum's ruling means voters will not get a chance in May to weigh in on whether they want the Austin Convention Center to be redeveloped.
The center has already been demolished, and work to build a new facility is already well underway. But the PAC argues there are better uses for the six-block stretch of land downtown, including museums or other cultural spaces.
Bill Bunch, an attorney with the PAC, said that's why the group is exploring its appeal options.
"The election code does provide for an opportunity to go directly to the Texas Supreme Court on urgent election matters, so we are looking at that option," Bunch said, adding that the PAC has not given up on giving residents the opportunity to vote — whether that is in May or November.
Austin Mayor Kirk Watson said the ruling is a win for Austinites.
"The expansion of our convention center is important to our city’s future," he said on X. "It serves as a focal point of our important and thriving tourism industry. I’m pleased that we are looking at a bright future."
This is not the first time there has been an effort to push a public vote on the expansion of the Austin Convention Center. A similar petition went before voters in 2019 and failed.
Pushing for a ballot measure
The Austin United PAC began collecting signatures last February for its “Save the Soul of Austin” petition, which aimed to effectively halt the Austin Convention Center expansion for seven years unless voters approved the project. The group needed 20,000 signatures to trigger an election, and announced in October 2025 that it had met that number.
But a few weeks later, Austin City Clerk Erika Brady, whose office verifies petitions, determined the group did not have enough signatures. For verification, the city used a random sampling of about 25% of the petition's total signatures, a method allowed by state law.
“The city has determined that the convention center petition fails to meet the requirement for the minimum number of signatures of valid voters,” Brady said in November. “Based on an independent, third-party review, the city is highly confident that the number of valid signatures is less than the 20,000 required to place the item on the ballot.”
The number of valid signatures is the basis of the lawsuit brought by Austin United PAC.
Bobby Levinski, an attorney representing the PAC, said the group believes Brady improperly disqualified hundreds of signatures to keep the petition below the threshold that would have sent the measure to the May ballot.
He said those signatures were from voters who live in the city’s limited purpose jurisdiction or in the extraterritorial jurisdiction — areas that exist just outside the city limits.
The state's election rules allow residents in limited purpose areas to vote only in city council, recall or city charter amendment elections. Those in the extraterritorial jurisdiction can only vote in proposition elections or charter provisions that impact them.
During the trial, witness Betsy Greenberg, who lives in Austin's limited purpose district, said she was able to vote in the city's 2018 Proposition that would have required voter approval for land development code changes. She was also allowed to vote in a 2019 city proposition election over how the city could lease land for sports or entertainment purposes.
Levinski argued the convention center petition should be no different. He said the city's cultural arts guidelines state that hotel tax dollars must be spent either in the city or the ETJ. The dollars spent on the Austin Convention Center come from the same pot of money, he said, so residents in the ETJ are qualified to have a say in how they should be spent.
"We have lands in the ETJ that can benefit from investments of these hotel occupancy tax dollars — whether it is ecotourism with trails and signage that can go on those trails ... or whether it's the Expo Center, where you can attract Austin artists to the rodeo," he said during closing statements. "All of those areas would benefit from the influx of these funds, and that's how it relates to the ETJ and limited purpose voters."
Additionally, Levinski said the city clerk also rejected dozens of signatures due to technical deficiencies.
During the trial, Stephanie Hall, deputy city clerk, said those signatures were likely rejected because they were missing an address or date of birth, which is required by state law. She said others could be due to the info being illegible or other missing requirements.
'The rules are clear'
Attorney Paul Trahan, who represented the city, said during the trial that the rules are clear about what signatures should be counted. He said the city clerk's office verified every signature possible, and evidence shows the petition came up short.
"Of the last 13 petitions submitted to the city clerk's office going back to 2018, 11 of them have been verified," Trahan said. "So it's not like the city clerk's office is looking to shoot down these petitions or looking for a reason to invalidate them."
Trahan maintained that voters in the ETJ do not qualify for this petition because it is not an ordinance that applies directly to residents in that area.
The convention center renovation is expected to cost $1.6 billion and includes expanding the facility as it tries to attract larger events and conferences. The project is being funded with Hotel Occupancy Taxes, which are paid through hotel stays. These tax revenues can only be used for tourism purposes.
Demolition is done. Construction has started and is expected to continue through 2028, with an opening date set for 2029 in time for spring festivals.
