Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday that he has filed a lawsuit against officials in Dallas, accusing the city of failing to comply with Proposition U, a 2024 ballot measure mandating increased funding for police and fire pensions.

Proposition U requires that 50% of all new annual city revenue be directed toward police and fire pension obligations. It also mandates that the city maintain a minimum force of 4,000 police officers, roughly 900 more than were on staff in 2024.

The lawsuit names Dallas City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert and Chief Financial Officer Jack Ireland Jr. as defendants. Paxton alleges city officials underreported the amount of excess revenue available for public safety under the measure.

According to the attorney general, Dallas should have allocated approximately $220 million in excess revenue for the 2025–2026 fiscal year but reported only about $61 million. The complaint contends that the city’s calculation method improperly reduced the funds that voters intended to go toward public safety.

“When voters demand more funding for law enforcement, local officials must immediately comply,” Paxton said in a press release announcing the legal action. He framed the lawsuit as an effort to ensure the city upholds its charter and provides officers with the financial backing necessary to maintain public safety.

In addition to the funding dispute, the lawsuit accuses Dallas of failing to hire an independent third-party firm to conduct an annual police compensation survey, another requirement of Proposition U.

The complaint seeks a court order compelling the city to properly allocate the alleged excess revenue toward police pensions, officer pay, and increasing staffing levels to meet the 4,000-officer threshold.

Dallas officials have stated they are taking steps to comply with the measure. Reporting by Fox 4 noted that in December, the city council approved a 30-year, $11 billion pension funding plan for the police department.

Paxton, a Republican who is running for U.S. Senate, characterized the lawsuit as part of a broader effort to ensure local governments respect voter mandates related to public safety funding.