Return to Intro Page


Can KISD Split Without a Vote? A Legal Interpretation Everyone’s Overlooking


Remarks in Red by Chris Coker (KISD Trustee)


This has been a question asked over and over in the news. 


The controversy centers on how to interpret the two-step "splitting" (i.e., detachment) process outlined in Sections 13.103 and 13.104 of the Texas Education Code:



Step 1 explains that a split can be initiated either by petition from the residents or by resolution from the school board.


Step 2 only provides instructions for what happens if the split was initiated by a petition—it explains the public election process, requiring a dual majority vote and at least 25% voter turnout in both districts. However, it never says what should happen if the board initiated the split by resolution. When you read the law straight through, it looks like they literally just forgot to include the word "resolution." 


Two Possible Interpretations


This has led to two competing ways to interpret the law:


  1. 1. Literal Interpretation – No Election Required
  • Since the law doesn’t explicitly state what happens after a resolution, nothing else is required. By this logic, the board’s vote is final, and a public election is unnecessary.
  • However, this creates a void in the law—it never actually says that a resolution alone is enough to finalize the split. It simply stops giving instructions.
  • The absence of guidance does not automatically mean a public election is not required.


  1. 2. Contextual Interpretation – An Election is Required
  • "Harmonizing Provisions" (Texas Gov’t Code 311.025) – Laws should be interpreted so that all parts work together rather than contradicting each other.
  • "Analogous Provisions" (Tex. Educ. Code 13.152) – When a law is unclear, similar laws should be examined to identify consistent legal precedent. We can gain perspective by looking at what the law says about other forms of restructuring, what other states do, and what the exact same laws said before they were revised. 


    • Other Forms of Restructuring - Every voluntary school district consolidation, abolition, and annexation in Texas history has required a public vote. Why would detachment be the only exception? Full abolition is substantially different from partial annexation.
    • Previous Version of the Texas Education Code - Prior to 1995, state law clearly required a public vote for district detachment. (See pages 154-156 on this pre-1995 version of the statute). In 1995, the statutes in question were updated. The Legislature didn’t repeal voter approval. They reorganized the law’s wording. It was changed for a reason


  • Other States - After researching dozens upon dozens of voluntary splits in other states, I haven’t found one example where a state has allowed a split to occur without a petition or public vote.

 

If the Legislature wanted to give school boards the sole power to split districts, it would have said so explicitly. That’s an assumption. Instead, the statute requires each board of trustees to call the election if a valid petition is received, implying that even when initiated by the board, an election is the next step.


What Was the Legislature’s Intent?


The law places strict requirements on detachment by petition:


  • At least 25% of voters in each affected district must participate.
  • A majority vote is required in both districts.
  • The process is designed to ensure broad democratic consent before a new district is created.


It makes no sense that the Legislature would require this level of voter approval for a petition-led split but allow a seven-member school board to do it alone with a simple majority vote. If that were true, what stops any Texas school board from redrawing school district boundaries whenever they want—without a single taxpayer getting a say?


Limits on a School Board’s Authority


Texas law defines a school board’s powers in Chapter 11 of the Education Code. Their responsibilities include:


  • Managing district affairs
  • Budgeting and setting policies
  • Hiring and overseeing personnel


They do not have the unilateral power to alter the fundamental structure of the district itself. Creating a new school district is not an internal policy decision—it is a structural reorganization of a governmental entity. The law requires broader oversight for such major changes, reinforcing the case for a public vote.

Another point to consider is that the Texas Constitution, Article 7, Section 3(d) states that school district formation must be governed by general laws enacted by the Legislature—not simply by the votes of a local school board.


Federal and Constitutional Considerations


Our Legislature must take into consideration the broader impact of how this law could interface with the federal laws, such as the The Voting Rights Act of 1965. If the detachment disproportionately affects certain racial groups or minorities, it will almost certainly trigger federal challenges. Keller ISD’s split is already being challenged in this way. This reinforces why a public vote is necessary. Forcing a public vote ensures that no group is disenfranchised in the process. Changing school district boundaries affects who can vote in future school board elections and how political power is distributed. This raises concerns under:



Finally, Article 1 Section 2 of the Texas Constitution says that the people have power over the government. The laws are founded on your authority and instituted for your benefit. The laws are supposed to serve your interests.


So, what do you think? Should a handful of board members be able to redraw school district lines, change tax zones, and impact thousands of students—without ever asking the public for approval?


I asked thousands of taxpayers in Keller ISD this exact question and I share the answer later in this report.

 

Side Note: 


I’m the first to stand up and call for a public vote on this.


But there’s a major problem—there’s no clear provision in the law that allows the KISD board to call a public vote, even if they wanted to. That doesn’t mean taxpayers shouldn’t demand one. The most likely governing body to step in is the Commissioners Court, and the good news is that steps are already underway to make this happen.


The Commissioners Court has several options: they can approve the split, refuse administrative approval, delay until they receive an opinion from the Attorney General (which is currently in progress), file for a declaratory judgment, urge legislators to introduce clarifying bills, or hold a public hearing to gather community input. If the AG’s opinion doesn’t support a public vote, that will be our signal to peaceably assemble and push for one.



The board has no authority to call a vote on this matter—that responsibility lies with the people. The law was likely changed to its current form to protect the district from uninformed public decisions. If the public were to push for a vote and it passed, there would be no way to reverse the outcome, regardless of any new information uncovered during the process.

A prime example is the recent bond information. When the board passes a resolution, it retains the ability to rescind it if new data emerges that could negatively impact the district, as we have just witnessed. However, if the people vote and the measure passes, there is no mechanism to undo the decision without significant harm, no matter what is discovered afterward.