In Woodway, Texas, some residents assume they vote for their mayor. In reality, the city council selects the mayor from among its members—a system that, while uncommon, is not unique in Texas. This method has sparked debate over transparency, accountability, and local democracy.
Woodway’s city charter stipulates that the city council, not the voters, selects the mayor. This council-manager form of government is used in several Texas cities, including Hewitt, Bellmead, Taylor, West University Place, Bellaire, and the “Memorial Villages” in Harris County.
While most Texas cities hold direct mayoral elections, a notable minority use the council-selection system, often citing stability and experience as benefits.
Brian “Duke” Machado, a longtime Woodway resident, was surprised to learn this system was in place. “Many people don’t realize how the mayor is elected,” he told Texas Scorecard after discussing the issue with neighbors. Motivated by a desire for greater transparency, Machado has started a petition to amend the city charter and allow for direct mayoral elections.
He’s working against the clock: he needs 400 valid signatures, all collected within a 45-day window, to get the amendment on the November ballot.
Supporters of the change, including councilmembers David Keyston and David Russell, argue that direct elections would make the mayor more accountable to citizens and reduce the influence of political blocs. “If the people of Woodway are not properly represented by their elected officials, then do whatever it takes to make sure that happens,” Keyston said.
Meanwhile, Mayor Amine Qourzal and Mayor Pro Tem Storey Cook are not fundamentally opposed to direct elections but question whether the change is necessary or cost-effective. “I am not opposed to a direct vote for mayor, but I do not see our current system as inequitable, unfair, or anti-democratic,” Cook wrote to Texas Scorecard.
Qourzal added that mayors chosen from the council have valuable experience and training in city operations, and noted that a special election could cost taxpayers $15,000 to $20,000, not including legal and administrative fees.
The debate exposed underlying political tensions. Qourzal suggested Keyston and Russell, who began supporting the petition after their preferred city council candidates lost in the May local election, are motivated by disappointment, not principle. “Had the election gone the other way, there wouldn’t be this petition,” he said.
Campaign finance has also become a flashpoint. Some city council members, including Qourzal, received significant donations from local developer David Mercer, while Keyston and Russell did not. Machado argues that this funding disparity makes it difficult for outsiders to compete, but Qourzal contends that online mudslinging, not funding, led to his opponents’ defeat.
Changing the city charter is a multi-step process. After collecting signatures, the petition must be reviewed by a committee, and then the council must draft and approve ballot language. Only then can the amendment go to voters—potentially not until after November, depending on timing and legal review.
A regular charter review is scheduled every ten years, with the next one slated for 2032. Holding a special election before then would require additional taxpayer funding.
Many residents remain unaware of how the mayor is chosen, and public opinion is divided. Machado says he has a dozen volunteers and hundreds of commitments to sign the petition, while city officials report little direct outreach from the petitioners.
However, there is precedent for change: Sugar Land amended its charter in 1990 to allow direct mayoral elections after 41 years under a council-selected system.
No ads. No paywalls. No government grants. No corporate masters.
Just real news for real Texans.
Support Texas Scorecard to keep it that way!
