Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Dallas officials, accusing them of defying a voter‑approved mandate to boost police funding under Proposition U.
Proposition U, approved by Dallas voters in November 2024, amended the city charter to require at least 50 percent of “excess” annual revenue be directed to public safety. The charter language earmarks those dollars first for the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, then for increasing officer pay and growing the force to at least 4,000 sworn officers.
Paxton’s lawsuit, filed in a Dallas County district court, targets the City of Dallas, City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert, and Chief Financial Officer Jack Ireland Jr. for allegedly underfunding public safety in violation of the charter.
The attorney general argues that city officials “acted beyond their legal authority” by using an improper calculation of excess revenue that drastically reduced the amount legally owed to police priorities.
For the 2025–26 fiscal year, the city’s own projections reportedly show about $220 million in excess revenue above the prior year. But Ireland told the Dallas City Council that excess revenue totaled only $61 million—roughly a quarter of that amount—after excluding large categories of city income from the calculation.
Paxton’s filing notes that the city did not cite any state or federal law restricting the use of the excluded revenue, which would be required to legally omit those funds from the Proposition U formula.
Because of this narrower calculation, the proposed city budget allocates far less money to police pensions, officer pay, and hiring than voters required, Paxton says. The lawsuit contends that Dallas’ current hiring plan leaves the department hundreds of officers short of the 4,000‑officer minimum mandated in the charter amendment.
Paxton’s lawsuit also points to another provision of Proposition U that city officials allegedly ignored altogether. The charter requires Dallas to hire an independent third‑party firm each year to conduct a police compensation survey comparing Dallas officer pay and benefits to those of other major North Texas departments.
According to information obtained by the state, no such survey was conducted, despite the charter’s mandatory language. That failure, Paxton argues, makes it impossible for city leadership to honestly claim they are meeting the voter‑approved requirement to make Dallas police pay competitive in the region.
“When voters demand more funding for law enforcement, local officials must immediately comply,” Paxton said, blasting what he describes as city hall’s attempt to sidestep the clear text of Proposition U.
“As members of law enforcement across the country increasingly face attacks from the radical Left, it’s crucial that we fully fund the brave men and women in law enforcement defending law and order in our communities,” Paxton added, saying the lawsuit is intended to “ensure Dallas follows its own charter and gives police officers the support they need to protect the public.”
The lawsuit asks the court to order Dallas to recalculate excess revenue in accordance with the charter, include all revenue not restricted by state or federal law, and then allocate at least half of that amount to Proposition U’s mandated public‑safety uses.
It also seeks to force the city to conduct the required annual compensation survey and to budget accordingly for police pensions, officer pay, and staffing to reach the 4,000‑officer floor.
The City of Dallas declined to comment on pending litigation.
