KINGSVILLE, Texas — The recall effort against three Kingsville city commissioners will move forward after a judge ruled Tuesday afternoon that the petition met all filing deadlines and city requirements.
City leaders appeared in the 105th District Court in Kleberg County for a hearing in the lawsuit filed by Kingsville resident Selina Tijerina against the city and the three commissioners: Norma Nelda Alvarez, Leonel “Leo” H. Alarcon, and Hector M. Hinojosa.
Tijerina filed the lawsuit in August after the Kingsville City Commission voted 3-2 — with Alvarez, Alarcon, and Hinojosa casting the deciding votes — to reject the recall petition and refuse to set a date for the election.
The lawsuit sought to enforce the city charter and compel the commission to schedule a recall election.
KRIS 6 News obtained documents related to the case, including the petition for writ of mandamus. The filing stated Tijerina had collected enough valid signatures on the petition. Since the commissioners did not resign within the five calendar days after they were given the notice, the next step was to do the recall election. The special election was put on the city meeting agenda on July 14, 2025, but was ultimately rejected.
As KRIS 6 previously reported, Tijerina's petition accused the three commissioners of:
- Unprofessional conduct/behavior of a City Commissioner
- Neglect of fiscal responsibilities
- Targeting personnel
- Neglect of City Government policies and procedures
Tijerina’s petition had received 292 certified signatures. According to the June 23, 2025, city agenda, 1,412 votes were cast in the most recent election. Twenty percent of that figure — 282.4 — was required for a valid recall petition, which means Tijerina’s petition surpassed the threshold.
In response to Tijerina’s suit, the three commissioners denied each of the allegations.
The hearing lasted nearly two hours, during which both sides presented their arguments before Judge Jack Pulcher. City officials called to testify included Mayor Sam Fugate, City Secretary Mary Valenzuela, and commissioners Alvarez and Alarcon
Gilberto Hinojosa, the attorney representing the city and the three commissioners, argued that the petition was not filed on time, lacked sufficient signatures, was not specific enough, and did not follow the strict requirements of Chapter 24 of the city charter.
Tijerina’s attorney, Christopher Gale, countered that the commissioners failed to take legal action—such as filing a writ of mandamus or request for declaratory relief—at the time the petition was certified. He argued that the points raised by the city were irrelevant to the current proceedings.
During the hearing, the court noted the city charter was outdated. Judge Pulcher stated that once the city secretary approved and certified the petition, all legal requirements had been satisfied. He clarified that in business and government law, the filing of a document (in this case, the affidavit filed May 6 at 2:23 p.m.) begins counting the next day, meaning the 30-day deadline began on May 7. As such, the June 6 filing date for the petition was within the required window.
Judge Pulcher granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the city to proceed with the recall election.
After the hearing was over, KRIS 6 News spoke to Gale about the judge's decision.
"This is something that should draw everybody out. It doesn't matter what political side you're on or what side you're on in regards to the facts. You need to get out and vote. You don't vote, then other people get to make decisions for you," said Gale.
Gilberto Hinojosa told KRIS 6 News they will appeal the ruling. He stayed firm that the recall petition was not filed in time.
"The affidavit was filed on May 6th. The recall petition was not filed till June 6th. If you count 30 days from that date. You count from that date to June 6th, it's 31 days, and so that's where I think the judge made a mistake." said attorney Hinojosa.
They have ten days to file that appeal.
