6 Legal Landmines That Will Kill the Keller ISD Split—No Vote Required
Comments in Red by Chris Coker
This section of the report was initially going to be on the pros and cons of splitting, but as I dove in and read about dozens of different examples of school districts splitting, consolidating, divorces, separations, detachments, abolishing, and restructuring in one form or another, it became clear that it is exceptionally rare for any voluntary split to succeed to completion.
After reading story after story, I’ve learned that there’s nothing easy or simple about restructuring a school district. Although difficult and rare, this isn't a new idea. If I exclude the state of Maine, where the laws and policies are wildly different than our area and splits are quite common, I couldn't find an example of a split that I’d consider a true success story.
With or without a vote, every situation I’ve read about was complex, expensive, and painful. Almost all of them died, but a few succeeded. The ones that reached completion left a trail of pain and expense. After you get beyond the vote issue, your troubles have only just begun.
It reminds me of Atreyu's quest in The NeverEnding Story, battling "The Nothing," facing relentless obstacles, and navigating his own Swamp of Sadness. That's about where we are now, hoping we'll pass safely through judgmental gates and maybe even meet our own Luck Dragon, Falkor. In the end, our reward might be no more than a single grain of sand. I imagine some would rather we just close the book like young Bastian and slip back comfortably into our old lives.
Our current Texas Education Agency Commissioner, Mike Morath, weighed in on the issue back in 2013 when he served as a Dallas ISD Trustee. At the time, Dallas ISD saw trouble with a full split so they considered a creative quazi-split idea. He noted that “it would be difficult and costly — both to make the idea a reality and then to run the entity…” and that “unless the schools’ educators — both principals and teachers — are on board, the idea isn’t worth exploring.”
Here are obstacles we must overcome on our journey to a split:
1. Federal Voting Rights Lawsuits: An Inevitable Barrier to the Split?
In my search for answers, I reached out to Dr. Richard Murray, Senior Research Associate at the Hobby School of Public Policy at the University of Houston. His expertise is “polling and election trends and practices statewide and nationally, partisan political change in Texas.”
After I described the situation in Keller ISD, Dr. Murray responded without hesitation. He explained that if KISD proceeds, lawsuits based on Federal Voting Rights Act violations due to demographic changes in the proposed boundary lines are almost inevitable. From our conversation, I got the strong impression that this issue alone makes the odds of the split succeeding very low. He also described a set of legal conditions that must be met for a voting rights lawsuit to be successful, which closely align with the criteria outlined by the attorney featured in this article.
Dr. Murray generously volunteered his time and provided a preliminary statistical analysis of the Voting Age Population for the proposed KISD split:
Statistician Dr. Murray Preliminary Analysis of Voting Age Population.pdf
To further reinforce what he explained, I found a pattern in every voluntary school district split I researched without exception. In each case, race was a significant part of the conversation.
This is a disgusting and unavoidable aspect of the history of splits. During the civil rights era, many school district separations were openly motivated by segregationist efforts. Even now, if race isn’t intentionally part of the motivation to split, the issue still arises every time there is a proposed school district split. When race wasn’t the stated reason, proposed boundary lines often led to wealthier, predominantly white areas breaking away from lower-income, more diverse communities. The result, intentional or not, was often the same—a more affluent, whiter district and a lower-income district with a higher minority population.
Sure enough, not long after my conversation with Dr. Murray, the first voting rights lawsuit against KISD was officially filed and reported in the news.
The attorney leading the lawsuit against KISD has a proven track record of winning similar cases in Richardson, Carrollton-Farmers Branch, Irving, Lewisville, and Grand Prairie. He’s so confident in his case that he’s taking it pro bono—a strong signal that he believes the lawsuit will succeed.
These lawsuits don’t just threaten the split, cases I’ve read about drag it through a costly, ugly legal battle before ultimately killing it altogether.
This doesn’t apply here. Their case has no merit in KISD.
2. Single-Member Districts: The Unexpected Roadblock to the KISD Split
A former KISD school board candidate turned district watchdog, Dixie Davis, is leading an effort to change how KISD elects its school board. She has launched this legal petition drive to gather signatures for a ballot measure that would replace KISD’s current at-large election system with a single-member district system.
Under the current at-large system, all voters across the entire district can vote for every board seat, and candidates can reside anywhere within district boundaries. In contrast, a single-member district system divides the school district into geographic areas. Only voters within each district can elect their respective board member, and candidates must live within the district they wish to represent. This system is designed to ensure that different sections of the district have direct representation on the board.
So far, Davis’ campaign is highly organized and gaining serious momentum. The effort has drawn support from both advocates for local control and those concerned with equal representation. However, critics point to Fort Worth ISD as an example of where single-member voting has not produced the desired results.
Ironically, the KISD split debate itself highlights the concerns that single-member districts aim to address. The underrepresented west side of KISD is not proportionally represented on the current board, which is exactly the kind of issue proponents argue single-member voting would fix.
Davis states that to get the measure on the ballot, all signatures must be gathered by August 14, 2025. If successful, the issue will be voted on in May 2026 and, if approved, will take effect for the 2027 trustee election. While this process is lengthy, it is still significantly faster than the timelines seen in school district detachment case studies.
If single-member districts are approved first, the KISD split effort is effectively dead in the water.
If this goes through, which I do not think it will. KISD will look similar to FWISD and you will start to see property values drop over time.
3. 4 Bond Roadblocks That Could Bring the KISD Split to a Screeching Halt
One financial expert I spoke with immediately said issues related to bond debt will definitely kill the KISD split. The more I investigated, the more I saw why.
You can’t just split a school district and expect the existing debt to magically get sorted out. Think of it like a married couple buying a house together as co-borrowers on a mortgage and then deciding to get a divorce. The bank still expects to be paid. Neither person can just walk away from the loan and unilaterally assign the debt to the other spouse. There’s a process to figure out who is responsible for what.
The same problem applies to school districts. KISD has millions of dollars in outstanding bonds, and those bonds were approved by voters, backed by the state, and guaranteed by bondholders. A split changes the financial structure of the district, creating four major legal and financial hurdles that could stop the split from happening.
This was always my biggest hangup with the possibility and for me personally, this was the data I was waiting on, to see if it would be beneficial or detrimental to the district.
Bond Issue 1: Bondholders Must Approve Any Changes
Why This Matters:
- When KISD issued bonds, it made a legally binding promise to investors about how the debt would be repaid. You can look up examples of Keller’s bond documents here.
- If KISD splits into two districts, those investors must agree to the new structure.
Why This Could Kill the Split:
- If bondholders don’t approve, the original bond contracts stay in place, but now with a split tax base that may not be able to support the payments.
- Bondholders have no obligation to accept new repayment terms. If they see the split as a financial risk, they can block the restructuring.
Legal Basis: Bondholder rights are protected under the Texas Public Securities Procedures Act (Government Code § 1201.028), which prohibits altering bond agreements without investor consent.
Bond Issue 2: Voters May Need to Approve the Bond Changes
Why This Matters:
- When voters approved the bonds, they did so based on KISD being a single district with a single tax base.
- Splitting the district creates two new taxing entities, which may require new voter approval for debt repayment.
Why This Could Kill the Split:
- If the Texas Attorney General determines the bond restructuring requires voter approval, then a new election must be held.
- If voters reject the new bond terms, the split cannot move forward until the financial issues are resolved.
Legal Basis: Texas Education Code § 45.001 requires voter approval for school district bonds, and any “material change” in bond terms could trigger a new election requirement.
Bond Issue 3: Texas Attorney General Must Approve the New Bond Structure
Why This Matters:
- In Texas, the Attorney General must review and approve all municipal and school district bond issuances to make sure they follow the law.
- If KISD splits, the new districts must have their bond structure approved again.
Why This Could Kill the Split:
- If the AG determines the split creates financial instability, they could refuse to approve the restructuring.
- This could delay the split indefinitely or make it financially impossible.
Legal Basis: Texas Government Code § 1202.003 states that all public securities must be reviewed by the Attorney General before they can be legally valid.
Bond Issue 4: Loss of the Permanent School Fund (PSF) Bond Guarantee
Why This Matters:
- KISD’s bonds are currently backed by the Texas Permanent School Fund (PSF), which provides a AAA credit rating and lowers borrowing costs.
- If KISD splits, the PSF must decide whether to extend the guarantee to the new districts.
Why This Could Kill the Split:
- If PSF refuses to back the new districts, their bond rating could drop, leading to higher interest rates and higher taxes for homeowners.
- Not all districts qualify for PSF guarantees, so the new districts may not get the same financial benefits as KISD today.
Legal Basis: Texas Education Code § 45.053 allows the PSF to guarantee bonds, but the Texas Education Agency (TEA) must approve the request, and new districts may not meet their standards.
How Debt and Property Values Could Impact the Split
Texas Education Code § 13.004 ensures that debt (bonds) is split in an “equitable” way between the two new districts. However, it does not override bondholder rights, eliminate the requirement for investor approval, or guarantee that voter or state approvals won’t be needed.
Another challenge comes from property value shifts that could impact tax and funding formulas. The Moak Casey report states that it only includes property values recorded through 2023, so I’m pretty sure new developments like H-E-B grocery store, Torchy's Tacos, Son of a Butcher, Whiskey Cake, and new apartments built along Riverside Drive aren’t included in their numbers.
If these businesses were not included in Moak Casey’s original projections, they could increase the west side’s property value significantly, which would further shift the tax and funding formulas, possibly increasing financial disparities between the two districts.
If these bond issues don’t kill it, I’ll be seriously impressed. The split would have more survivability skills than Wile E. Coyote shrugging off an ACME anvil to the face.
4. The Open Meetings Act Lawsuit: A Game-Changer That Could Shut Down the KISD Split
We have touched on this issue before, but it has now escalated. What started as two separate lawsuits has now merged into a single, unified legal effort.
Here is a site outlining the case, and here is an article detailing the involvement of a high-profile attorney and Cary Moon, a well-respected, financially savvy former city councilman, who is leading the charge in organizing the legal efforts.
Rumors are circulating that damaging information is emerging during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. If those rumors are accurate, this legal battle could deliver a decisive blow that ends the KISD split before it ever gains real traction.
There wasn’t a TOMA violation, so nobody was concerned about this. Which is why I’m saying it's a waste of money. The only people that will win in this are the attorneys.
5. Attorney General & Commissioner’s Court: Another Major Obstacle for the KISD Split
We have discussed this issue before, but it’s a critical hurdle worth mentioning again. The Attorney General’s opinion could determine whether a vote is required for the KISD split to move forward. If the ruling mandates a vote, that alone could complicate or delay the process significantly.
Even if the Attorney General does not require a vote, the Commissioner’s Court must still agree to participate in the split. Given the current landscape, the chances of securing that approval seem highly unlikely. No matter how this plays out, the odds of the split overcoming this obstacle do not look good.
I think the commissioners' court asking for clarification was wise. Given the circumstances.
6. The Legislative Fix: Closing the Loophole That Could End the KISD Split
This issue has now gained national attention, drawing increased scrutiny at the state level. Early on, local Texas Rep. David Lowe voiced his support for closing the legal loophole that could allow the KISD split to move forward without a public vote. To address the controversy, he has since filed legislation aimed at eliminating this ambiguity.
Lowe is not alone in this effort. Other legislators have also taken an interest, and while the bill may not advance immediately, the strong momentum behind the issue makes it likely that it could gain traction as an amendment attached to a larger bill. If that happens, the split effort comes to an abrupt end.
The two biggest issues against the split that I didn’t even mention here are: .
- 1. If it went to a vote, it would fail. See the “mock vote” certified by a statistician found in another part of this report. I don't necessarily believe this to be true. It depends solely who was asked and with what information they have. Nobody had enough information, including board members, to make an educated decision at the time of the “mock vote”.
- 2. The split does not solve any budget issues. Instead, it creates more. See the expense section of this report. This is inaccurate, it didn't create more revenue, but it most certainly gave a visual path for potential money management efficiency isolated to a smaller sub-set. Your expense section assumes many things that are highly unlikely.