Texas Ballot Propositions

There are eight propositions on the Texas ballot statewide this November. They come from resolutions passed during the regular legislative session. You can follow the links to find the wording of the actual bills:

·         Prop 1  HJR 143 Geren:– Sports teams charitable raffles

·         Prop 2  HJR 99 Canales, et al.: County to finance development through bonds

·         Prop 3  SJR 27 Hancock: Prohibit limit of a religious service – Hancock

·         Prop 4  SJR 47 Huffman, et al.: Eligibility for Judicial offices – Huffman et.al

·         Prop 5  HJR 165 Jetton: State commission on Judicial conduct regarding candidates

·         Prop 6  SJR 19 Kolkhorst: Essential Care Giver

·         Prop 7  HJR 125 Ellzey, et al.: Exempt from School tax surviving spouse of disabled if 55+

·         Prop 8  SJR 35 Campbell, Bettencourt, et al.: Exempt Ad Valorem tax surviving spouse of armed forces

 

There’s a tendency for the voting public to either skip the propositions, or vote for all of them, assuming the legislature wouldn’t have passed them if they weren’t good—especially if the legislature’s majority party is the same as the voter’s. When son Political Sphere and I go through propositions, we assume we should vote against them, unless after studying them we are convinced they deserve our vote. That said, these are mostly pretty good.

So let’s go through them one by one. (It’s long, but there’s a summary of my voting recommendations at the end.)

I prepared a presentation for some precinct chairs earlier this week, and was thinking at that time about passing along information more than sources. It is not my intention here to take credit for someone else’s words, so I’m listing sources I used. My starting sources were my SREC Chair (State Republican Executive Committee—a man and a woman from each senatorial district in the state). He let me know the ballot wording, the basic meaning, and a detail here and there. He also passed along a list of arguments for and against, gathered by the Hays County League of Women Voters, which gave me more info about what the different sides were saying than I had seen. I’ve used these two sources mostly intact (I may have done minor editing that I forgot about, but not to change the meaning).

There’s also a summary of the propositions I found later: here. The “what they mean” looks similar to but not exactly what I have used here.

Then I thought through the issues, made my arguments, and then talked through them all with my son, who, among other duties, is legal counsel for the Commissioners’ Court of a small, rural county, which is good added info to our local huge urban/suburban Harris County.

I made an error in my earlier presentation regarding Proposition 8, although it didn’t change my final opinion; I’ve corrected that below.

 

Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo
image found here

 

Proposition 1 (HJR 143)

What will be on the ballot:

“The constitutional amendment authorizing the professional sports team charitable foundations of organizations sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association or the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association to conduct charitable raffles at rodeo venues.”

What it means: Allows charitable raffles to be conducted at rodeo events hosted or sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association.

 

Here are the LoWV list of arguments:

Arguments for Proposition 1:

 

·       Many other professional sports charitable foundations (such as those for the NFL, MLB, NBA) are allowed to hold raffles. This proposed amendment broadens the field to include charitable rodeo foundations.

·       Raffles of this type generate revenue for charities such as youth scholarship programs, the YWCA, and the American Cancer Society, among others.

 

Arguments against Proposition 1:

 

·       Raffles are another form of gambling, which has negatively affected some Texas families.

·       This form of gambling could eventually be extended beyond professional sports to many other organizations. 

 

My Conclusion about Proposition 1 :

 

·       It makes sense to be consistent for the rodeo, when other professional sports charitable foundations can hold these raffles. Why should rodeo—which is very big here in Texas—be excluded?

·       I’m generally against gambling; in general, gambling causes a state more is social spending than it brings in in revenue. But these are not government related. And raffles, I believe, are not a significant temptation for compulsive gamblers, because they are temporary and limited. They are basically a fundraising mechanism for charities, and people tend to participate for that purpose.

·       This is not a very slippery slope. Extending beyond the rodeo would have to be done in another bill passing in the bi-annual legislature and then be voted for by the people in the following November.

 

VOTE YES for PROPOSITION 1

_______________

 

Proposition 2 (HJR 99)

Advocate Staff Photo by Patrick Dennis
image found here

What will be on the ballot:

 

“The constitutional amendment authorizing a county to finance the development or redevelopment of transportation or infrastructure in unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted areas in the county.”

What it means: Allows a county to issue debt to finance transportation infrastructure, excluding toll roads, in underserved parts of the county.

The arguments:

Arguments For Proposition 2:

·       Cities and towns can already finance infrastructure and transportation projects using bonds and notes. Counties also need the ability to address infrastructure issues.

·       The development or redevelopment of infrastructure or transportation is expected to increase property values. Higher property values would result in higher tax revenues to repay these bonds. 

·       Texas is growing, and infrastructure and transportation development is needed for our future economic prosperity. The proposition would allow counties to use bonds to finance much needed infrastructure projects.

 

Arguments Against Proposition 2:

·       This proposition could expand debt, which may raise local property taxes. 

·       Texas’s local debt ratio per person is already too high, and issuing these bonds ties up future funds for debt service payments. 

·       These transportation and infrastructure projects could divert revenues that may go to other government services or projects.

 

My Conclusion about Proposition 2:

I had a question about how county roads are already funded. I reached out to my county commissioner but haven’t yet received an answer.

My son says, in his county, for example they have an annual budget of $20M. $1.5M per precinct goes to road maintenance, or $9M of that $20M total. This allows $2500 per mile for maintenance—only of county roads, not private roads, FMs (farm-to-market roads), or highways. Last year they got 3 miles paved. So, that’s worth considering. Nevertheless, we don’t think another form of debt is the answer. Maybe there’s another way, like allotting more money for county infrastructure in the state budget—or in county budgets where there is enough revenue.

Anyway, here are my conclusions:

 

·       The terms “unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted areas” are not defined; this means those pushing for the bond can name declare this of any area they choose.

·       If a minority area is named “blighted,” anyone who opposes the bond—of whatever size and at whatever interest rate—will be labeled racist. This is similar to what happens with school bonds (we passed a $1.2 billion bond in our school district recently, which was ridiculous): you can hardly ask questions about it without being labeled as hating children.

·       Counties are required to balance their budget; this proposition is a workaround to allow Washington-style deficit spending.

·       Counties already have means for funding infrastructure, although we may need to look at additional ways of meeting needs.

·       The SREC voted 62-0 against Proposition 2.

·       Our local representatives, Rep. Oliverson and Rep. Schofield, did not co-author this bill in the legislature.

 

VOTE NO against PROPOSITION 2

______________

 

image found here

Proposition 3 (SJR 27)

What will be on the ballot:

 

“The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”

What it means: A governmental entity could not limit or prohibit religious services, such as what we saw attempted during the pandemic. In Texas, the Governor only shut down churches for 12 days, and then declared them essential services. But the idea that the Governor can cause a shutdown at all is troubling.

 

Here are the arguments:

 

Arguments For Proposition 3:

 

·       Churches provide important support in a time of crisis. Closing churches reduces access to their services.

·       Closing churches violates religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

·       A government official should not be able to keep anyone from attending religious services.

 

Arguments Against Proposition 3:

 

·       It could prevent local governments from enforcing safety measures during natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes or another pandemic.

·       No faith group should have an unqualified right to spread a communicable disease.

·       Existing law and the Texas Constitution adequately protect religious organizations. 

 

My Conclusion about Proposition 3:

This bill is in reaction to the overstepping of authority by state and local governments

Political Sphere suggested looking at Section 6 of Article 1 of the Texas Constitution.

Thus far, since the pandemic started, challenges have only been done based on the First Amendment of the US Constitution, about laws infringing the freedom of worship. Religious infringements have not yet been challenged based on the Texas Constitution, and such cases would probably prevail. Meaning the amendment isn’t actually necessary. However, we will probably still vote for it. Depending on a court challenge, rather than on the clear word of the law, seems dangerous before the next “crisis.”

 

My Conclusion for Proposition 3:

 

·       Government can still manage safety measures during natural disasters such as tornadoes or hurricanes; those are self-evidently short-term problems. And churches tend to meet where they can for the purpose of support and service—no government edict should get in the way of that.

·       When government provides accurate information, churches—as well as businesses and individuals—can develop their own safety measures. Assuming only a governmental edict will prevent people from spreading a disease is tyrannical thinking.

·       Existing law and the Texas Constitution obviously didn’t adequately protect religious organizations in Texas. Only pressure on the Republican governor ended those intrusive measures relatively quickly.

 

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 3

______________

 

Texas Supreme Court
image found here

Proposition 4 (SJR 47)

 

What will be on the ballot:

 

“The constitutional amendment changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.”

What it means: This would require 10 years of experience as a practicing lawyer in the State of Texas or a practicing lawyer and judge of a state court or county court for a combined total of at least 10 years to be eligible to serve as Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas.

 

I made a chart to see the changes more clearly:

So the changes are to require being licensed to practice law in Texas, not just practicing for 10 years. The combination of 10 years of being a lawyer and a judge are intact, but “court of record” is now defined as “a state court or county court established by the Legislature.” And added is the requirement that the license must not have been revoked during the 10 years.

 

Here are the arguments:

 

Arguments For Proposition 4:

 

·       Increasing the required number of years of legal experience for district court judges could result in a better qualified Texas judiciary.

·       The quality and reputation of the Texas judiciary could be enhanced by the requirement that a judge’s license cannot have been revoked or suspended.

 

Arguments Against Proposition 4:

 

·       The requirement of additional years of experience as an attorney could adversely impact the diversity (age, race, gender, etc.) of judicial candidates and judges.

·       The amendment could restrict the size of the pool of candidates eligible to run for the judicial positions, which could result in a judiciary that does not reflect the population.

My son’s rural county perspective was that the pool of possible judges would definitely be limited. But he plans to vote Yes anyway.

 

My Conclusion about Proposition 4:

 

·       I don’t know whether more years of experience will lead to better judges, although that seems logical. I do like the requirement that they haven’t had their law license suspended.

·       I’m not concerned about the additional requirements adversely impact the diversity. We shouldn’t choose judges based on their intersectionality score; we should choose them based on ability to judge according to the law.

 

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 4

__________________ 

 

seal of the Texas Commission
on Judicial Conduct,
found here

Proposition 5 (HJR 165)

 

What will be on the ballot:

 

“The constitutional amendment providing additional powers to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with respect to candidates for judicial office.”

What it means: Currently, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct may only handle complaints against existing judges. This amendment would extend the Commission's authority to impose the same standards on all judicial candidates as it does for those who are already judges, therefore leveling the playing field and ensuring all candidates for judicial positions are treated equally.

No fiscal impact.

 

Arguments For Proposition 5:

·       Allowing misconduct charges against judicial candidates could result in fairer judicial campaigns. Under current law, misconduct charges can be brought against judges currently in office, but not against candidates running for judicial office. 

·       Bringing complaints about judicial candidates, as well as judges in office, to the Commission on Judicial Conduct could ensure that complaints against both candidates and judges are heard and acted on. This could result in better screening of both candidates and judges. 

Arguments Against Proposition 5:

·       Opponents say this amendment is unnecessary. Those who have complaints of misconduct against judicial candidates can file them with other authorities, such as the State Bar, the Attorney General, or the appropriate District Attorney for investigation and action.

·       Adding complaints against judicial candidates to the Commission on Judicial Conduct could overburden the Commission and its staff with new cases.

 

My son adds that a loophole is closed with this constitutional amendment. It may not have been often used, but theoretically a judge who knew he was going to have a complaint charged against him could step down, so there would be no charge while he ran for office again. Having complaints visible for both a sitting judge and a candidate for judge eliminates that possibility.

 

My Conclusion about Proposition 5:

·        It makes sense to me to have all judicial candidates on a relatively level playing field (incumbency notwithstanding). The goal is to elect qualified judges, and it is currently harder for the general public to know about complaints against a candidate than complaints against a sitting judge.

·       I’m not concerned about overburdening the Commission on Judicial Conduct; we hire them to do a job. I doubt there will be so many otherwise disqualified candidates running that their burden is much changed.

 

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 5

________________

 

image found here

Proposition 6 (SJR 19)

What will be on the ballot:

 

“The constitutional amendment establishing a right for residents of certain facilities to designate an essential caregiver for in-person visitation.”

What it means: This amendment would guarantee residents of long-term care facilities (such as nursing homes) the right to designate someone as an essential caregiver. Though they may put certain guidelines in place, these facilities would not be allowed to prohibit residents from visiting with their designated caregivers, even in situations similar to Covid-19. Those in long-term care need contact with family. This would ensure that family support can be provided at all times.

 

Here are the arguments:

 

Arguments For Proposition 6:

 

·       For Texans in group care, visitation by a loved one can help combat loneliness, anxiety, and depression, and can provide advocacy and emotional support.

·       For residents with no remaining connections, there is comfort in having outside visitors in the facility.

 

Arguments Against Proposition 6:

 

·       This amendment takes away the ability of public health and certain government officials to restrict access by outsiders to group care facilities in order to protect the residents and the staff.

·       Even if health and safety protocols are in place, visitation by outsiders could expose other residents and the staff to disease.

 

Political Sphere notes that the passage of this amendment will allow for a gap in rules. If it passes, it will take effect January 1, 2022, but the legislature won’t meet again until January 2023 to set rules, which then would probably not take effect before September 2023—assuming the Legislature handles making the rules that session. In the meantime, nursing homes could keep their current rules or make their own. Still, having a designated caregiver by the end of this gap is better than not at all.

My Conclusion about  Proposition 6:

 

·       Making people in nursing homes “safe” by making them miserably lonely was one of the worst things we did during the pandemic. The residents deserve a choice about how to enjoy their last days.

·       This amendment still allows the legislature to set guidelines, so it’s not going to allow relatives with active contagious illness to come in.

·       While visitation by outsiders could expose residents and staff, so can exposure by staff. A nursing home is not an isolated universe. Staff may come into contact with the virus when they are away from work. Why allow staff to enter but not a loving family member of a resident?

 

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 6

_________________

 

image found here

Proposition 7 (HJR 125)

What will be on the ballot:

 

“The constitutional amendment to allow the surviving spouse of a person who is disabled to receive a limitation on the school district ad valorem taxes on the spouse’s residence homestead if the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person’s death.”

What it means: Allows the surviving spouse of a disabled person to retain the tax ceiling benefit. When one spouse dies, the income is reduced. Maintaining tax at existing rate is helpful. It does not increase tax burden of school since it maintains what was already granted.

Here are the arguments:

Arguments For Proposition 7:

·       This amendment would protect the surviving spouse of a disabled person from losing an important benefit. 

·       The proposition validates a state law already passed and clarifies that the law is to be enforced.

·       The proposed amendment passed with zero “no” votes in both the Texas House and the Texas Senate, indicating broad bipartisan support.

 

Arguments Against Proposition 7:

·       The passage could reduce tax revenues for school districts and other local taxing authorities.

·       Any lower property values could decrease revenue and affect the state school funding formulas.

·       This could lead to further property tax exemptions, which could have future negative effects on school and other local finances.

 

Currently, this limitation in the constitution is provided to homeowners over 65 years old and to disabled persons. To be eligible for this limit, the spouse must be at least 55 years old when the disabled person died and must still live in the home.

The proposed amendment is needed because, in 2019, the Tax Code was updated to allow this tax limitation for surviving spouses of disabled persons, but the Legislature failed to authorize a proposed constitutional amendment. Some counties followed the Tax Code and some did not. For those that did not, eligible surviving spouses may be due a refund.

 

My Conclusion about Proposition 7:

·       This proposition corrects an oversight from the 2019 law. A surviving spouse shouldn’t have to give up the tax rate ceiling they had been counting on when their elderly or disabled spouse was alive.

·       Tax revenues for school districts and other local taxing authorities are the same as they were before the spouse died, so it doesn’t in any way affect the state school funding formulas.

·       The slippery slope argument doesn’t fly; any further property tax exemption would have to go through the rather onerous legislative and voter process based on its own merits.

 

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 7

_____________

 

image found here

Proposition 8 (SJR 35)

What will be on the ballot:

 

“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.”

What it means: This would allow the surviving spouse of a service member who is killed or fatally injured (rather than killed in action) to receive a property tax exemption. When one spouse dies, the income is reduced. Maintaining tax at the existing rate is helpful. The service member has given his life defending our country. This is the least we can do.

 

Essentially, Proposition 8 would expand eligibility so that surviving spouses of members of the military who are killed in the line of duty benefit from the same exemption from property taxes that is currently given to spouses of military members killed in action. So, if their death was due to injuries that are not combat related (such as in a training exercise), it would still be considered a result of their military duties. This exemption is for the property tax on the market value of the spouse’s residence homestead if the spouse has not remarried.

 

Arguments For Proposition 8:

 

·       This amendment would correct an oversight in current law to include surviving spouses of the military who were killed in the line of duty, rather than only in action.

·       These surviving spouses have suffered the loss of their partner because of their military service and should therefore be provided the same benefit as those whose spouses were killed in action.

·       Death in combat for our country’s soldiers should not be the determining factor on whether we honor their military service by providing relief for their spouse.

 

Opponents say:

 

·       This amendment will reduce tax revenues to school districts, counties, cities, and special districts by lowering property value. Many more military are killed in the line of duty than are killed in action. The estimated potential loss of tax revenue could be significant.

·       Second, any lower property values could decrease revenue and affect the state school funding formula. Also, this amendment would expand property tax exemption to another group of people, which could increase the tax burden for other property owners.

 

My Conclusion for Proposition 8:

 

·         Similar to Proposition 7, this amendment keeps property tax revenues the same as they were when the military person was alive—rather than increasing it as an additional hardship on the surviving spouse. I misunderstood this when I presented the propositions for a group of precinct chairs earlier this week. The rate doesn’t actually stay the same; it lowers it as it already does for spouses of military killed in action; it isn’t maintaining a lowered rate enjoyed by military while alive. So it is different in that way from Proposition 7. However, I still believe it’s worth doing. If it causes a significant drop in property tax revenues surrounding military bases, maybe we need a different mechanism to make sure those communities don’t bear the entire burden.

·         Military families should not be punished for the “bad luck” of losing a spouse in the line of duty rather than in action. We should honor the service of those who gave their lives in service, regardless of whether that was in battle.

 

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8

 

Summary for Ballot Propositions
November 2021

Proposition 1           YES

Proposition 2           NO

Proposition 3           YES

Proposition 4           YES

Proposition 5           YES

Proposition 6           YES

Proposition 7           YES

Proposition 8           YES