Houstonians may not have had the final word on the city's red light camera program, which voters rejected in a Nov. 2 referendum.

A lawsuit filed by the city grew more complicated Tuesday when opponents of the devices attempted to intervene in litigation between the city and American Traffic Solutions, or ATS, the Kansas-based company that operated the cameras.

Paul Kubosh, an attorney who along with his brothers bankrolled the effort to convince voters to shut down the camera program, accused Mayor Annise Parker's administration of purposefully offering a weak defense of the referendum.

Such a strategy could result in allowing the cameras to remain in place and operational, he said.

"It appears to us that the city of Houston is laying down cover for ATS because the citizens don't like to have their vote challenged by an out-of-state corporation," Kubosh said. "The city is trying to hide behind a federal judge to keep the cameras up because they need the money."

The vote created an immediate $10 million hole in the Houston Police Department budget, city officials have said.

Defending the outcome

City Attorney David Feldman emphatically denied Kubosh's charge, saying the city filed a suit preemptively in order to defend the outcome of the election.

Feldman noted that City Council in August voted to put the referendum on the ballot based on his advice that Kubosh had followed the correct guidelines under state law for doing so.

"We will be on the side, ultimately, of preserving the will of the people," Feldman said.

On Nov. 15, the city filed a preemptive lawsuit in federal court asking a judge how it should proceed after voters rejected the program. ATS filed a countersuit on Nov. 24 seeking to nullify the referendum.

Since the camera program's inception in 2006, the city had collected $44 million in fines from more than 800,000 citations issued with the devices, splitting the revenue between the police department, Texas hospitals and ATS.

On Nov. 15, when the city certified the Nov. 2 election results, in which 53 percent of voters rejected the devices, Parker said the cameras had been turned off.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes ordered last week that the cameras not be taken down until the litigation between the city and ATS is concluded.

A spokesman for ATS promised after the election that the company would not seek to nullify the outcome of the referendum, but that's exactly what their countersuit is seeking.

"After the election the city asked us to stop issuing violations and we complied with their request," company spokesman Charles Territo said in a statement. "It was only after we were sued that the issues discussed in our response became relevant. The core of this lawsuit is not about getting the cameras turned back on; this is about whether or not a contract with the city of Houston is worth the paper that it's written on."

In College Station

ATS similarly challenged a 2009 referendum in College Station and camera opponents also accused that city's attorney of mounting an intentionally weak defense of the public vote. A judge ultimately ruled in favor of ATS, although the College Station City Council voted to terminate the contract after the public vote.

David Furlow, a lawyer representing the Kuboshes, said there are many reasons to be suspicious of the city's lawsuit against ATS. The suit "gratuitously" raises the question of whether the referendum was valid, something that undermines its own case, he said.

"The Kuboshes have a reasonable fear that someone needs to speak on behalf of the people who have opposed red light camera systems, rather than the city, who has continually drawn tens of millions of revenue from them," he said.

Kubosh also noted that many City Council members expressed an unwillingness to put the matter on the ballot. Parker, he said, has also criticized the method used to put the question to voters.

Feldman said he raised the question of the referendum's validity in anticipation of ATS' argument. He also noted that the city's suit specifically seeks a judge's opinion on how the city should proceed after terminating the contract with ATS in light of the referendum.

The camera opponents should respect the process and the judge's ability to decide the matter, he said.

bradley.olson@chron.com