Amarillo City Council reaffirms election results amid criticism over canvassing process

The Amarillo City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved two resolutions aimed at reaffirming and clarifying the outcomes of the city’s recent municipal elections. But while city officials framed the move as a step toward transparency and procedural clarity, it drew sharp pushback from at least one resident, who alleged that the council’s actions violated Texas election law.

Resolutions No. 07-08-25-2 and No. 07-08-25-3, approved by the three council members present, attach previously omitted documents to the official record from the May 3 general election and the June 7 runoff. These include tabulated vote totals and certificates of election that officials say were part of the original canvassing process but were inadvertently excluded from earlier resolutions.

“These actions are consistent with state law and ensure completeness of the record and transparency for the public,” City Manager Grayson Path told council members. “The results and outcomes remain unchanged.”

The resolutions passed 3-0, with Mayor Cole Stanley and Councilmembers Les Simpson and David Prescott in attendance. Councilmembers Don Tipps and Tim Reid were absent.

Mayor Stanley emphasized the resolutions were not a re-canvassing of the elections, but rather a formal clarification and completion of the existing record.

“We simply received the tabulated results and fulfilled our duty under the law,” Stanley said. “This doesn’t change the election outcome, but it does complete the public record.”

Stanley added that the city had followed the Texas Election Code and that any procedural concerns regarding the elections should be directed to the county election administrator, who the city hires to conduct its elections.

Despite the council’s efforts to shore up confidence in the process, Amarillo resident Michael Ford forcefully contested the legality of the actions during the meeting’s public comment period. He argued that the elections had not been properly canvassed and that Tuesday’s resolutions were an attempt to “retroactively validate” what he called a flawed process.

“All I’ve asked, and all the law requires, is that you hold a lawful canvass,” Ford said. “Open the sealed returns, tabulate the votes by precinct, and include early voting — recorded in the minutes.”

Ford pointed to Section 67.004 of the Texas Election Code, arguing that the city had misapplied the law and failed to follow its own charter in conducting a valid canvass. He also cited Section 67.005, which outlines that the official result of a local election must be based on precinct returns opened and reviewed by the canvassing authority.

“You are not legally qualified to be here,” Ford said in a pointed challenge to Councilmember Prescott and others. “Per the Secretary of State, no lawful canvass means no lawful certificate, no lawful oath, and no legal authority.”

Mayor Stanley did not directly respond during the meeting but acknowledged afterward that Ford and others have the right to raise concerns. “Our job was to properly receive [the results] and fulfill the letter of the law, which I feel like was done here today to the best of our ability,” he said.

The council had earlier convened in a closed executive session to discuss procedural aspects of the May 13 and June 16 canvasses — the formal meetings during which the city accepted the results of the May 3 and June 7 elections, respectively.

Controversy surrounding the June 16 runoff canvass had already surfaced in prior meetings. Only Councilmembers Tipps and Reid attended that session, with Tipps citing Section 67.004 to assert that two members constituted a quorum for canvassing. But Ford and others have argued the council misrepresented or misunderstood that provision, especially in light of the city charter.

“You’ve repeated false claims that 67.004 overrides the Charter, that your only duty is to accept results, and that sealed returns are optional,” Ford said on Tuesday. “None of that is true, and it never was.”

Ford distributed copies of his full statement — which he was unable to finish delivering aloud — to local media present at the meeting.

Following the vote, Stanley suggested the city may revise its election procedures to ensure better alignment with both the Texas Election Code and public expectations.

“I think that what we’re doing here today is reinstituting those certificates that are given,” Stanley said. “We will more than likely update our policies and procedures and how we communicate with those election administrators, and the way in which all of that is rightly aligned with current state law.”

Despite the council’s assurances, Ford’s objections raise the possibility of continued public — and potentially legal — scrutiny over how Amarillo certifies and documents its election outcomes. Whether the council’s latest actions will satisfy critics or prompt further challenges remains to be seen.