Amend CSSB 341 in ARTICLE 2 of the bill (page 10, after line 27), by inserting the following new SECTION in the ARTICLE:

SECTION 2.03.  (a)  The purpose of this article is to provide all of the eligible voters of the district an opportunity to determine by election whether to continue with the current managing authority of the district or to transition to another managing authority which owns, operates, and manages the system, as defined by Section 1A, Chapter 306, Acts of the 49th Legislature, Regular Session, 1945.

(b)  In order to provide all of the district's eligible voters an equal opportunity to vote on the determination in Subsection (a) of this section, the preferred method of election is a district-wide vote with all votes weighted equally. The reasons for this preference include:

(1)  the election is a referendum on a single issue, involving different considerations in its structure than the considerations for an election to select members of a multi-member governing body;

(2)  neither the vote dilution principles addressed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. Section 1973 et seq.) nor the three-part analytical framework used to measure vote dilution under Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), are applicable to such a single-issue referendum;

(3)  the explanation in Butts v. City of New York, 779 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986), that, if "the winner of an election for a single-member office is chosen directly by all the eligible voters" for that office, electoral arrangements are unlikely to deny a class of voters equal opportunity for representation, is equally applicable to the preferred method of election for the single-issue referendum established in this article; and

(4)  the preferred method of election established in this article adheres strictly to the constitutional principle of "one person, one vote," a principle which a federal court has stated specifically applies to the district in an order dated September 21, 2006, in Civil Action No. SA-96-CA-335, Rios v. Bexar Metropolitan Water District et al., in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and which the district has never challenged by appeal or otherwise.