The City Council is likely to repeal Denton鈥檚 low-level marijuana decriminalization ordinance on Tuesday, which has never been enforced since more than 32,000 voters passed it in 2022, in the city鈥檚 largest-ever turnout for a municipal election.
The ordinance, known as Proposition B, sought to prevent the use of city funds for cannabis testing, end citations for misdemeanor amounts of cannabis under 4 ounces and only permitted citations or arrests for Class A and B misdemeanor possession of marijuana when they are part of a felony narcotics case or a violent felony. The ordinance also prevented citations for drug paraphernalia in lieu of cannabis possession charges and prohibited police from using cannabis odor as a probable cause for search and seizure.
鈥淭he City Manager has consistently and publicly stated that the City has not and would not enforce Chapter 21, Article V (the marijuana ordinance),鈥� City Manager Sara Hensley wrote in an agenda information sheet that was posted Friday. 鈥淔urthermore, the City Council, City Manager, and Denton Police Department have never adopted a policy or practice to not fully enforce marijuana laws.鈥�
In the memo, Hensley cited recent movements in Attorney General Ken Paxton鈥檚 in Dallas, Denton and four other Texas cities as the reason for recommending that a council majority repeal the voter-approved ordinance.
District 2 council member Brian Beck called staff鈥檚 recommendation to repeal a Denton voter-approved ordinance 鈥渨rongheaded鈥� and a 鈥渢roubling act of submission in the face of political pressure鈥� in a post on his council member Facebook page Saturday.
鈥淣early 73% of Denton voters approved this policy at the ballot box,鈥� Beck wrote. 鈥淚t passed in every district but two. That wasn鈥檛 symbolic: it was self-governance in action. Denton is a home-rule city, and when our residents speak that clearly, our duty is to represent them, not retreat from them.鈥�
Over the weekend, Decriminalize Denton, the local grassroots organization behind Prop B, issued a call to action on social media for people to meet in front of City Hall at 6 p.m. Tuesday shortly before the council meeting and share their support of an ordinance that they argue saves lives.
Decriminalize Denton submitted the petition in May 2022 that led to Proposition B鈥檚 appearance on the November 2022 ballot. It was part of a statewide movement by Ground Game Texas, an Austin-based policy advocacy group, that saw similar ordinances passed in Austin, Dallas, San Marcos and other cities.
In a news release Sunday, Decriminalize Denton spokesperson Deb Armintor said that neither Hensley nor three police chiefs who have served under her have ever enforced the voter-approved ordinance, nor has the council held them accountable for not doing so. Armintor, who is a former council member, also decried the lack of warning or community engagement.
鈥淣ow, in May 2025, that same unelected city administrator is citing the groundless lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton as reason to repeal the ordinance altogether,鈥� Armintor wrote in the release. 鈥淭he city of Dallas, whose own successful cannabis decriminalization initiative ordinance was modeled after Denton鈥檚, hasn鈥檛 caved to Paxton鈥檚 bullying, and neither should Denton. Dallas is actually implementing their ordinance instead. So should Denton. Just because other cities like San Marcos are repealing their decriminalization ordinances doesn鈥檛 mean Denton should too.
鈥淒ecrim Denton urges Council to fulfill their duty to their constituents and vote NO to repeal.鈥�
Last year, Paxton and five other Texas cities 鈥� Austin, Elgin, Killeen, San Marcos and 鈥� over their cannabis ordinances, claiming that Texas Local Government Code forbade any political subdivision from adopting policies that would not fully enforce the state鈥檚 drug laws.
It was a lawsuit that Denton Mayor Gerard Hudspeth warned would happen.
鈥淭his unconstitutional action by municipalities demonstrates why Texas must have a law to 鈥榝ollow the law,鈥欌�� Paxton said in news release on Jan. 31, 2024. 鈥淚t鈥檚 quite simple: the legislature passes every law after a full debate on the issues, and we don鈥檛 allow cities the ability to create anarchy by picking and choosing the laws they enforce.鈥�
According to state law, possession of between 2 and 4 ounces of marijuana is a Class A misdemeanor, while possession of less than 2 ounces is a Class B misdemeanor. Possession of drug paraphernalia is a Class C misdemeanor 鈥� but there is no provision prohibiting possession of drug residue.
Although Paxton recently received a temporary injunction by the courts, the merits of the cases haven鈥檛 been argued at trials in Austin or San Marcos. According to April court documents, the 15th Court of Appeals wrote, 鈥淲e remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion and to enter a temporary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the Ordinance pending a final trial on the merits.鈥�
In her memo to the council, Hensley said the 15th Court of Appeals had held in April that the ordinances in San Marcos and Austin were 鈥減reempted鈥� 鈥� or prevented 鈥� by Section 370.003 of the Texas Local Government Code, that council members in those cities acted ultra vires 鈥� or exceeded the limits of their authorities by adopting the ordinances 鈥� and that the state was entitled to a temporary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ordinances.
Denton attorney Richard Gladden, who represents Decriminalize Denton, said Hensley was misleading the public and the council by presenting information that was factually incorrect since the courts haven鈥檛 ruled on whether the ordinances were preempted by the Texas Local Government Code or if council members had exceeded their authority by adopting the ordinances.
鈥淯nfortunately, it appears to me that the Denton City Council and city manager don鈥檛 understand the difference between something probable and having occurred already because the read of the ordinance that they posted online is making the mistake that the court of appeals ruled that the decriminalization ordinances were preempted,鈥� Gladden said Monday. 鈥淚f you carefully read those decisions, it鈥檚 abundantly clear to lawyers that no such ruling was made in San Marcos or the city of Austin cases.鈥�
Gladden stressed that the appellate court鈥檚 rulings related to the temporary injunction sought by the state.
鈥淥bviously, if they sent it back for trial, they haven鈥檛 decided on the merits,鈥� Gladden added. 鈥淥therwise, there would be no reason to have a trial.鈥�
In a late Monday afternoon email, Dustin Sternbeck, the city鈥檚 chief communication officer, wrote that the court in San Marcos held in plain terms that 鈥溾�檛he Ordinance is preempted because it erects multiple barriers that prevent the City of San Marcos and its police officers from fully enforcing the State鈥檚 drug laws.鈥�
鈥淭hat means that the 15th Court of Appeals, the same court that already has evaluated Denton鈥檚 objections to discovery,鈥� Sternbeck wrote, 鈥渁nd that will consider Denton鈥檚 similar legal defenses if and when Denton鈥檚 case is appealed, has already found that functionally the same ordinance is preempted by state law.鈥�
CHRISTIAN McPHATE can be reached at 940-220-4299 and cmcphate@dentonrc.com.
For more than 120 years, the Denton Record-Chronicle has been Denton County鈥檚 source for locally produced, fact-based journalism. Your support through a or is vital to our ability to deliver credible, relevant, unique coverage of our community.
