Firefighter layoffs have been reversed since District 157 of HC, Judge Garrison, ruled it unconstitutional.

The voter approved prop mandated equal pay between firefighters and police. The ruling states the prop violates the Texas Constitution's rule surrounding city ordinances and is pre-empted by the Texas Local Government Code's meet-and-confer rules for police and fire depts.

Houston Mayor Turner said the layoff notices of 220 firefighters, 67 cadets, and 47 muni workers that were issued in April are no longer necessary. He said the city will offer to return to the bargaining table with the Houston Professional FIrefighters Association to try to negotiate a raise. 

Like the way Turner spun this as a win. "No raises for anybody, but hey! Nobody who was getting fired to pay for those raises is getting fired now". Pffft... 

What do you expect him to say? He's willing to negotiate raises.

They don't deserve equal pay with police. Completely different jobs with different positions/ranks. Apples and oranges.

Clearly the whole city council found no other way to pay for the outrageous raises, the majority of which are Republicans.

In my opinion, it is a major win for the city. It should never have been passed in the first place. 

It was voted into policy by COH residents. It never should have gone to the ballot box if there was any chance of it's illegality. 

I don't disagree with that.

Just like the red light cameras and the drainage fees. All turned out to be illegal. Surely they were all run by the city's legal team who most likely are the ones who wrote up the referendums in the first place. As you should be aware, interpretation of legalities is a great big gray area.

Regardless, I'm glad it was reversed and 220 people kept their jobs. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never a good idea and shame on the Firefighters to be backing that concept. 

It was voted into policy by COH residents. It never should have gone to the ballot box if there was any chance of it's illegality.

AI tend to agree and obviously so did the Judge. We elect law makers to make laws and city ordinances. It should never have circumvented the constitutionally mandated process. 

I also agree. You shouldn't be forced to give raises if there is no money to pay for it. 

It was voted into policy by COH residents. It never should have gone to the ballot box if there was any chance of it's illegality. 

It wasn't ruled illegal, it was ruled unconstitutional. Big difference. Challenges to the Constitution usually start at the voter (individual)level.
OmM. 

It wasn't ruled illegal, it was ruled unconstitutional. Big difference.

If something is ruled unconstitutional then by extension it is illegal. How is it anything else if the Constitution defines the limits of and how the government functions.

Challenges to the Constitution usually start at the voter (individual)level.
OmM.

Changes to the Constitution have to be passed by the voters and in the case of the US Constitution the majority of states. However, challenges to any law as to Constitutionality almost always start at the lower court level. 

No
It was ruled unconstitutional. While that makes it illegal, that wasn't the ruling. No fine or punishment was levied.