San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas


Handing a procedural victory to proponents of a proposed city charter amendment that would prohibit artificial fluoridation of the municipal water supply, a state judge ruled on Friday that San Marcos officials misinterpreted the city charter in refusing to validate a grassroots petition calling for a popular election on the issue.



Invoking “the principle that the citizens’ right to exercise their reserve legislative power should be liberally construed in favor of that power,” 22nd State District Judge Bruce Boyer said that he “will require the city of San Marcos, through its appropriate official, to review the submitted petition to ascertain if it contains the original signatures of the percentage of qualified voters required [by the Texas Local Government Code].”

“If the petition qualifies, the city of San Marcos shall be required to follow the ministerial duty of calling for an election on the issues,” Boyer concluded.

Acting on unambiguous advice from the city attorney, City Clerk Jamie Lee Pettijohn on May 5 said she would not attempt to verify more than 2,000 signatures on the petition, which would obligate the city to place a proposed charter amendment on the Nov. 3 general election ballot that states, in part, “The city of San Marcos … shall not fluoridate the public water supply or accept any fluoridated water for use in the San Marcos water system.” Anti-fluoridation activists say they have verified 1,634 of the signatures as belonging to registered San Marcos voters eligible to sign the petition.

In a lawsuit filed June 17 against Communities For Thriving Water – Fluoride Free San Marcos and three anti-fluoridation activists, City Attorney Michael Cosentino asked a judge to declare the petition invalid because each of its 572 pages is not accompanied by “an oath or affirmation that … each signature to the paper appended is the genuine signature of the person whose name purports to be signed.” The oath requirement is codified under a section of the charter titled “Initiative, Referendum and Recall.”

In a countersuit filed July 17 on behalf of Communities For Thriving Water and defendants Kathleen O’Connell, Sam Brannon and Morgan Knecht, attorney Brad Rockwell scoffs at Cosentino’s “hysterical and punitive” lawsuit and argues that the only applicable portion of the city charter — a section titled “Amending The Charter” — makes no mention of oaths, affirmation or any requirement beyond those established in the Texas Election Code.

Boyer ruled against Cosentino on three of four substantial issues on which the city based its lawsuit, finding that the petition does comply with state and municipal law; that the petition is not void because of the lack of an accompanying oath; and that the city is legally required to put the amendment on the ballot assuming the petitioners gathered enough valid signatures.

Because he determined that the “Initiative, Referendum and Recall” portion of the charter does not apply to the charter amendment under consideration, Boyer declined to rule on the constitutionality of the “oath or affirmation” requirement for petitions, the city’s fourth request.

Boyer heard arguments on Aug. 6 and Aug. 12 from Cosentino on behalf of the city and from Rockwell and attorney Lynn Peach on behalf of Communities For Thriving Water, O’Connell, Brannon and Knecht.

This is a developing story.



District Judge Bruce Boyer ruling on City of San Marcos, Communities For Thriving Water lawsuits [pdf]

Email Email | Print Print


9 thoughts on “District judge orders San Marcos to count anti-fluoridation petition signatures

  1. Yes!!! A victory for all those in favor of healthy water. Now citizens of San Marcos UNITE and when this is issue is up for a vote, please vote in favor of an amendment to prohibit fluoridation of the city water supply!

    Many thanks to Communities For Thriving Water, defendants Kathleen O’Connell, Sam Brannon and Morgan Knecht, and attorney Brad Rockwell for fighting the good fight! And thanks to all of the residents who signed the petition.

    Although I now live in Albuquerque, my heart is still in San Marcos along with many friends. Wishing you all the best in continuing to protecting the citizens and the environment of this very special place.

  2. I like the fluoride. It’s good for our teeth and, despite what opponents say, there’s no credible evidence that it’s harmful in any way.

    The CDC, ADA, and WHO all support it…in fact, it was recognized as one of the most important medical achievements of the 20th century by the CDC.

    If this proposed amendment somehow makes it to the ballot, please vote NO.

  3. The CDC, FDA, and EPA are primarily responsible for the fluoridation propaganda. All of these institutions have had major whistle blowers discrediting them and revealing their close ties to Big Pharma. So much for relying on the “medical establishment” to do what is right for the public’s safety…

    Dr. Marcia Angell was the editor of the most prestigious medical journal in the world, “The New England Journal of Medicine,” and a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School’s Department of Global Health and Social Medicine.
    On January 15, 2009, the NY Review of Books published Dr. Angell’s devastating assessment of medical literature:

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)
    She also wrote: “A review of 74 clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that 37 of 38 positive studies [that praised the drugs] were published. But of the 36 negative studies, 33 were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

    Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (The Lancet, p. 1380, Vol. 385, April 11, 2015)

    David J. Graham is an American epidemiologist who is the Associate Director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Office of Drug Safety. In a 2005 interview, Dr. Graham stated the “FDA is inherently biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. It views industry as its client, whose interests it must represent and advance. It views its primary mission as approving as many drugs it can, regardless of whether the drugs are safe or needed.” (Fraud Magazine, September/October 2005, “FDA Incapable of Protecting U.S., Scientist Alleges”)

    Dr. William Thompson, epidemiologist, Immunization Safety Branch of the CDC: “I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.” (Natural News, Aug. 27, 2014)

  4. Appears that all those quotations may have been about non peer reviewed “scientific” publication, which is a well documented issue. Does not appear that they are about fluoridation.

    That style of argumentation taints everything else you may say.

  5. Winchester,

    Just the fact that you deny the importance of the quotes I provided, is evidence your opinion is tainted beyond recognition. Your allegiance to a corrupt establishment is quite amazing in its blind loyalty. “Lemming” comes to mind. “Paid for” lemming also comes to mind. I am curious — at one point would someone like you ever question the establishment? Only after they destroyed your health? Name one established institution that is corrupt. Can you even name one, or they all good for you and too good to be true? How about the ones that took the bailout money from the government — all good in your eyes, right? Lemming….

  6. Yes, obviously if Winchester disagrees with you, he has no credibility, right? I love how you went all the way to Winchester must be on the take. The unnamed evil institution is paying anonymous commenters to attack you just so they can keep making money poisoning the water… Do you even listen to yourself? And it is because your comments (where you cut and paste studies out of context) are so persuasive that left unchecked, you will help pass this fruitcake referendum. And even though you follow along the wing nut train of misinformation, those who would question you are “lemmings”.

  7. Well Jennifer, none of your studies reference fluoride specifically – they just call into question the scientific process. Do you dismiss ALL research? Congratulations, you have confirmed your membership in the tinfoil hat club.

  8. Where to begin.

    I;\’ve been posting here for year, , and the name v. tag means nothing to me, nor to the site owner.

    Wish I was getting paid, that nickel would mean a lot to me.

    The quotations you posted have nothing to do with flouride.

    If you wish to attack me personally, please do it better; you’re not really worth the effort.

  9. Oh no! The illuminati want us to have clean teeth! The HORROR!!!!!
    But if I may be serious for a moment….if your argument is really that everything that we know about “science” is nothing but flawed propaganda, then what pray tell are you basing your opposition to fluoridation of the water supply on? Because I’m pretty sure that there are “scientific” (junk science, but nonetheless….) arguments being offered up by the dirty teeth crowd too…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.