The Texas State Constitution is, like the US Constitution,
the foundational law. However, unlike the US Constitution, it is not brief and
difficult to amend. It is relatively lengthy and tends to have amendments added
(and pretty much always added, never deleted) following every bi-annual
legislative session. So, in odd numbered years—off-year for all but some local
elections—we have these possibly life-altering decisions to make when most
people are not paying attention.
I try to pay attention, to make decisions as wise as I can.
And I pass along my thoughts to help others be more informed as they vote as
well.
On my ballot, there are four school board races (which I
wrote about here), one county proposition (which I haven’t studied yet), and
these 14 constitutional amendments. I’ve been gathering thoughts on these from
friends, which I’ll summarize here. And I’ll be making my
decisions/recommendations as I go through them. Fourteen is a lot, more than I
remember here in Texas. Which means this will be an extraordinarily long blog
post. Feel free to skim. There’s a chart of recommendations at the end.
When I put out word that I needed input, I got help from
Mark Ramsey (former SREC committeeman, former congressional candidate, and
former chair of the RPT Platform Committee, and long-time friend). Mark put
together a spreadsheet showing his choices along with True Texas Project (TTP),
Don Huffines Liberty Foundation, and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (TFFR). I
also got input from Mark Goloby (precinct chair next to mine, former protest
candidate for governor, and expert on Chapter 330 legislation), who sent me his
input as well as a 10-page discussion by Judge Michael Landrum, whom I respect
as one of the good guys. (Judge Landrum’s offers explanation and background
only, beyond the Secretary of State’s explanatory note, but he does not give
his recommendations, so I don’t include him on any charts, just in discussion.)
I also got my son, Political Sphere, to find time to write up his
recommendations. And I got a brief list of which amendments he’s voting for,
from Tom Nobis, my current SREC committeeman (on the chart, I’ve assigned No to
any he isn’t voting For, but it’s possible he would be neutral on some of
these). So I’m laying these all out before me and going through them, as I
write this, to make my decisions and recommendations.
Let me start by saying, the default position should always
be NO—unless and until there is a good case made for the proposition. We
shouldn’t be changing the foundational law at a whim or for special interests.
Here we go.
Each one starts with the Secretary of State’s explanatory
statement (including the legislative bill number it came from), and the wording
on the ballot. Mark Ramsey has a short title for each, which I’ll use—which admittedly
reveals his calling out how much spending is involved.
Proposition
Number 1 (HJR 126) RIGHT TO FARM
SOS:
HJR 126 proposes a constitutional amendment to protect a person’s right to
engage in generally accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture, or
wildlife management practices on real property that the person owns or leases.
The proposed amendment would not affect the authority of the legislature to
authorize the regulation of these practices by: (1) a state agency or political
subdivision as necessary to protect the public health and safety from imminent
danger; (2) a state agency to prevent a danger to animal health or crop
production; or (3) a state agency or political subdivision to preserve or
conserve the natural resources of the state under the Texas Constitution.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would not affect the legislature’s
authority to authorize the use or acquisition of property for a public use,
including the development of natural resources under the Texas Constitution.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production,
horticulture, and wildlife management.”
There is a general thought that people have a constitutional
right to farm on their property, which should not be infringed. Cities
sometimes place restrictions on property owners. This is to prevent that.
Mark Ramsey says this amendment “raises the legal threshold
for regulations on farming,” and it “prevents cities from restricting farming.”
Mark Landrum quotes the bill’s author as saying, “Farmers and ranchers who
engage in production agriculture within municipal boundaries are being
subjected to broad overregulation….” And Landrum adds, “The proposed amendment
would not affect the authority of the legislature to authorize the regulation
of these practices if necessary to protect the public health and safety; to
prevent a danger to animal health or crop production; or to preserve or
conserve the natural resources of the state. The amendment will not eliminate
or diminish the power of eminent domain.”
On the other hand, Mark Goloby says, “Seems innocuous at
first, but this is covered in ‘pursuit of happiness.’ What are they up to?”
Political Sphere adds more skepticism, while not being
against the concept. He says, “This session they passed legislation with
essentially the same wording limiting municipal authority to regulate
agriculture, etc., covered in this amendment. While I think it may ultimately
be beneficial, that depends entirely on how it is applied by the courts as they
interpret it. I would like to see it go through at least a decade of case law
so we can determine any corrections we need before we pass this as a
constitutional amendment.”
So, the question for me is, am I convinced the amendment is
necessary to protect our property rights? I am in favor of protecting our
property rights. That should be a given. And in general property rights are
protected in the state and federal constitutions; we just can’t trust
bureaucrats and petty tyrants from infringing on them. An explicit
constitutional amendment is a bit harder to ignore than just a law.
I may think about this and change my mind, but I’m going
to go with Yes on Proposition 1, unless more red flags come up about
it.
Proposition
Number 2 (SJR 64) CHILDCARE CARVEOUT
SOS:
SJR 64 proposes a constitutional amendment to allow the governing body of a
county or municipality to exempt from property taxation all or part of the
appraised value of real property used to operate a child-care facility. The
proposed amendment would authorize the governing body to adopt the exemption as
a percentage of the appraised value of the property, but that percentage could
not be less than 50% of the appraised value of the property. The proposed
amendment also would allow the legislature to define the term “child-care
facility” and to establish additional eligibility requirements to receive the
property tax exemption.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
authorizing a local option exemption from ad valorem taxation by a county or
municipality of all or part of the appraised value of real property used to
operate a child-care facility.”
The near consensus seems to be that childcare isn’t
inherently different or special enough, compared to other properties, that it
requires a special exception.
Michael Landrum’s explanation, which seems more simply
explanatory than endorsing, is this: “This proposition and its enabling
legislation (signed by the Governor) would provide licensed child care
providers some relief from higher taxes regardless of whether they own the
facilities or rent the property in which their childcare centers are located.”
Mark Ramsey points out that it was a Democrat bill, written
and pressed by lobbyists. It “raises your property tax to let someone else get
theirs lowered.” He adds that it’s subject to abuse and offers little
oversight.
I’m voting NO on Proposition 2.
Proposition
Number 3 (HJR 132) NO WEALTH TAXES
SOS:
HJR 132 proposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit the legislature from
imposing a tax based on the wealth or net worth of an individual or family. The
proposed amendment also would prohibit the legislature from imposing a tax
based on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or
family.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
prohibiting the imposition of an individual wealth or net worth tax, including
a tax on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or
family.”
Everyone that has weighed in on this says Yes. There has
been a movement among various states and possibly federal lawmakers to
confiscate wealth—that has already been taxed—and redistribute it, calling it a
“wealth tax.” It’s bad in every way governments can be bad. Michael Landrum
explains, “Texas does not currently impose a state tax on the wealth or net
worth of an individual or family. However, a tax on an individual’s or family’s
wealth or net worth, such as a property tax on an individual’s stock holdings
or bank accounts is not strictly prohibited by the Texas Constitution, which
currently requires or authorizes, under certain circumstances, the taxation of
both tangible and intangible property.
“If adopted, this amendment will prohibit the legislature
from imposing a tax based on the wealth or net worth of an individual or family
and will also prohibit the legislature from imposing a tax based on the
difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or family.”
Political Sphere is concerned that the ballot wording may be
a bit confusing. People might not understand that we’re preventing a wealth tax
here. But still, he’s voting Yes.
Do we need it spelled out in our state constitution that we
shouldn’t ever have a “wealth tax” to confiscate and redistribute wealth?
Apparently we do. I’m voting Yes on Proposition 3.
Proposition
Number 4 (HJR 2 – Second Special Session) PROPERTY TAX BUYDOWN
SOS: HJR 2 proposes a constitutional amendment to
modify certain provisions of the Texas Constitution related to property taxes.
The proposed amendment would authorize the legislature to temporarily limit the
maximum appraised value of real property for property tax purposes in a tax
year. The proposed amendment also would increase the mandatory homestead
exemption for school district property taxation from $40,000 to $100,000. The
proposed amendment would require the legislature to provide for a reduction in
the amount of the limitation on school district property taxes imposed on the
residence homestead of the elderly or disabled. Additionally, the amendment
would exempt appropriations not dedicated by the Texas Constitution and used
for property tax relief from being considered as appropriations when
determining whether the rate of growth of appropriations in a biennium has
exceeded the constitutional tax spending limit. The proposed amendment would
further authorize the legislature to provide that members serving on an
appraisal board in a county with a population of at least 75,000 serve terms
not to exceed four years.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment to
authorize the legislature to establish a temporary limit on the maximum
appraised value of real property other than a residence homestead for ad
valorem tax purposes; to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem
taxation by a school district applicable to residence homesteads from $40,000
to $100,000; to adjust the amount of the limitation on school district ad
valorem taxes imposed on the residence homesteads of the elderly or disabled to
reflect increases in certain exemption amounts; to except certain
appropriations to pay for ad valorem tax relief from the constitutional
limitation on the rate of growth of appropriations; and to authorize the
legislature to provide for a four-year term of office for a member of the board
of directors of certain appraisal districts.”
|
Proposition 4: PROPERTY TAX BUYDOWN
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
Y
|
Y
|
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
There seems to be agreement that there should be property
tax relief. Mark Ramsey points out that this is a compromise; “We still need to
ABOLISH immoral property taxes.” There was enabling legislation that does not
go into effect unless this amendment passes. According to Michael Landrum, the
amendment does several things:
·
While homestead values can only be increased by
10% per year for taxing purposes, other non-homestead values weren’t capped.
This will cap those other types of property to 20% per year.
·
The mandatory homestead exemption for schools is
raised from $40,000 to $100,000.
·
There must be a reduction in the amount of the
limitation on school district property taxes imposed on the residence homestead
of the elderly or disabled. This assures that homestead owners whose school
district taxes are frozen will benefit from the increase in the state exemption.
·
Additional money is allocated to school
districts to “buy down” their tax rates, thus further reducing school taxes.
The reduction in tax rates will be 10.7 cents per $100 valuation.
Political Sphere adds, “I cannot remember when the general
homestead exemption was last increased, despite massive increases on the
general value of a homestead. This is much more preferential to treating
certain people and properties as somehow special.” I think he’s referring to
proposition 2’s method here.
So, we didn’t get property taxes abolished—and replaced with
a consumer or other type of tax that cannot be an income tax. But we got this
homestead exemption increase—in a way that school districts don’t complain too
loudly. I’m voting Yes on Proposition 4.
Proposition Number 5 (HJR 3) SHOVEL
$$$ TO ACADEMIA
SOS: HJR 3 proposes a constitutional amendment to
redesignate the national research university fund as the Texas University Fund
(TUF), and to appropriate funds from the economic stabilization fund to the
TUF. The proposed amendment would appropriate to the TUF an amount equal to the
interest income, dividends, and investment earnings attributable to the
economic stabilization fund for the preceding state fiscal year. The
appropriation amount could not exceed $100 million for the state fiscal year
beginning September 1, 2023, or an amount adjusted for the increase in the
general price index, not to exceed two percent, in subsequent state fiscal
years. The proposed amendment also would prohibit any state university that is
entitled to participate in dedicated funding provided by Article VII, Section
18 of the Texas Constitution from receiving money from the TUF.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment relating to
the Texas University Fund, which provides funding to certain institutions of
higher education to achieve national prominence as major research universities
and drive the state economy.”
|
Proposition 5: SHOVEL $$$ TO ACADEMIA
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
Political Sphere comments on the ballot wording, which
sounds to me like an ad in favor than a statement of the constitutional change.
He says, “The language on the ballot appears to be intentionally vague, and I
had to go to the authorizing legislation to determine what was actually going
on. While education is a laudable goal, I do not feel that creating an annual
tapping of the rainy day fund’s interest is acceptable.” So, yes, the bill is
taking money from the Rainy Day Fund and allocating it, year after year in
perpetuity, to a newly named Texas University Fund. There was already an
existing national research university fund; it just gets a new name and a new
funding source.
Mark Ramsey also says that it breaks the constitutional
“spending caps.” Plus, it’s vague and bureaucratic. And did we mention that it
siphons money from the Rainy Day Fund? And they can keep siphoning every year
from now on? And this is such a priority that they make it a constitutional
amendment?
So, I’m voting No on Proposition 5.
Proposition
Number 6 (SJR 75) SHOVEL $$$ TO WATER PROJECTS
SOS: SJR 75 proposes a constitutional amendment to
create the Texas water fund. The Texas water fund would be a special fund in
the state treasury outside the general revenue fund, administered by the Texas
Water Development Board (TWDB) or its successor to assist in financing water
projects in the state. The proposed amendment would direct the Texas water fund
administrator to use the fund only to transfer money to other TWDB funds or
accounts. The proposed amendment would authorize the legislature to appropriate
money for deposit to the water fund to be available for permitted transfers. No
further legislative appropriation would be required for the water fund
administrator to transfer money from or restore money to the fund, including
the transfer of money to or the restoration of money from certain designated
TWDB funds and accounts. The water fund would consist of: (1) money transferred
or deposited to the fund by general law; (2) other revenue that the legislature
by statute dedicates for deposit to the fund; (3) investment earnings and
interest earned on amounts credited to the fund; (4) money from gifts, grants,
and donations to the fund; and (5) money returned from any authorized transfer.
The proposed amendment would require the legislature, by general law, to provide
for the manner in which money from the Texas water fund may be used. The
proposed amendment also would require that at least 25% of the money initially
appropriated to the Texas water fund be transferred to the New Water Supply for
Texas Fund.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this
state.”
|
Proposition 6: SHOVEL $$$ TO WATER PROJECTS
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
Again for this one, Mark Ramsey says it breaks the
constitutional “spending caps.” Also, it adds bureaucracy.
However, there isn’t full agreement on this. Political
Sphere, who has dealt with water projects at the rural level, where unfunded
state mandates take every bit of extra revenue that ought to be going to
infrastructure replacement, for example, says this: “This will create an
interest bearing fund to help finance water projects throughout the state, at a
time when we need large-scale water projects to ensure that we have sufficient
water for our communities.” Also, TFFR, always aware of increased government
spending, sees the need for water projects, and therefore remains neutral on
this one: “While clean water is a very important resource, this amendment
nonetheless will expand government and the spending of taxpayer dollars. We
remain neutral.”
My sense is that providing water infrastructure is an actual
proper role of government. While I’m concerned about any increase in
bureaucracy, this seems to me a more efficient way to fund actual needed water
supply projects—primarily infrastructure related. So, I’m persuaded by
Political Sphere’s experience here, breaking with friends, and voting Yes on
Proposition 6.
Proposition
Number 7 (SJR 93) SHOVEL MONEY TO ELECTRIC UTILITIES
SOS:
SJR 93 proposes a constitutional amendment to establish the Texas energy fund.
The Texas energy fund would be a special fund in the state treasury outside the
general revenue fund, administered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas
(PUC) or its successor. Money in the Texas energy fund could be used, without
further appropriation, only by PUC or its successor to provide loans and grants
to finance or incentivize the construction, maintenance, modernization, and
operation of electric generating facilities necessary to ensure the reliability
or adequacy of an electric power grid in the state. The proposed amendment
would require PUC to allocate money from the fund for loans and grants to
eligible projects for electric generating facilities that serve as backup power
sources and in each region of the state that is part of an electric power grid
in proportion to that region’s load share. The Texas energy fund would consist
of: (1) money credited, appropriated, or transferred to the fund by or as
authorized by the legislature; (2) revenue that the legislature dedicates for
deposit to the fund; (3) the returns received from the investment of the money
in the fund; and (4) gifts, grants, and donations contributed to the fund.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the
construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating
facilities.”
|
Proposition 7: SHOVEL $$$ TO ELECTRIC UTILITIES
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
I wish I knew more. I have been hoping the state would get
serious about fortifying our electric grid for a long time (read here). We have
our own grid in Texas, which is good, because we can protect it ourselves, without
having to wait for some larger entity to do it. It’s also painful when it fails
(read here). It’s hard to get people to prioritize hardening the electric grid
when so many other problems seem more certain. What I don’t know is whether
this really addresses hardening the electric grid, or something else.
TFFR and Political Sphere both say it helps strengthen the
electric grid, which we know we need; and they are both sources that are
cognizant of bureaucracy and our need for fiscal responsibility. TFFR says
this: “We believe this is a necessary interim step to attempt to avoid
blackouts that might have been made inevitable by previous poor policy
decisions. There was a major effort this past legislative session to make our
grid reliable. Legislation was passed that authorized the PUC to fix many
problems with the grid, specifically the addition of a new reliability
standard. Those laws in conjunction with this amendment provide a possible
solution to rescue our destabilized Texas electric grid.”
Michael Landrum’s explanation says the fund will provide “loans
and grants to finance or incentivize the construction, maintenance,
modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities necessary to
ensure the reliability or adequacy of an electric power grid in the state—”
Then there’s this: “primarily for electric generating facilities that serve as
back-up power sources.” Does that mean alternatives, such as wind and solar.
Those are the ones that have been unreliable. If backup means more and better
power sources for when those fail us, then that’s a good thing. If there’s any
intention to prioritize these alternative sources that we can’t rely on, that’s
not a good thing.
I can’t tell from the limited research I’ve done. I know
that we need to harden our grid. I think this might help, and we may never get
it before the people again. So, again I’m splitting with friends and getting
persuaded by my son; I’m voting Yes on proposition 7.
Proposition
Number 8 (HJR 125) SHOVEL $$$ TO TELECOM UTILITIES
SOS: HJR 125 proposes a constitutional amendment to
create the broadband infrastructure fund. The broadband infrastructure fund
would be a special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund,
administered by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller). Money
from the fund could be used, without further appropriation, only for the
expansion of access to and adoption of broadband and telecommunications
services. The broadband infrastructure fund would consist of: (1) money
transferred or deposited to the fund by the Texas Constitution, general law, or
the General Appropriations Act; (2) revenue that the legislature by general law
dedicates for deposit to the fund; (3) investment earnings and interest earned
on money in the fund; and (4) gifts, grants, and donations to the fund. The
proposed amendment would authorize the Comptroller to transfer money from the
broadband infrastructure fund to another fund as provided by general law, and
the state agency that administers the fund to which any money is transferred
could use the money without further appropriation only for the expansion of
access to and adoption of broadband and telecommunications services. The
broadband infrastructure fund would expire on September 1, 2035, unless
extended by adoption of a joint resolution of the legislature. Immediately
before the expiration of the fund, the Comptroller would be required to
transfer any unexpended and unobligated balance remaining in the broadband
infrastructure fund to the general revenue fund.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
creating the broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband
access and assist in the financing of connectivity projects.”
|
Proposition 8: SHOVEL $$$ TO TELECOM UTILITIES
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
This looks like it ought to be obvious: we don’t favor
particular market segments with taxpayer money. There is the problem, however,
of a lack of high-speed internet in many rural parts of the state. Michael Landrum’s
explanation included this from the bill’s author: “almost 2.8 million Texas
households, or roughly seven million Texans, lack broadband Internet access.
This means that nearly a quarter of Texans do not have the quality of Internet
access necessary to attend online classes, see a healthcare provider from their
living room, complete an online job application, start a business online, or
access digital marketplaces from their kitchen table. These barriers negatively
affect Texans' quality of life and limit economic opportunities for the people
of Texas and the state overall.” That is a problem. And it’s one Political
Sphere has experienced in his small town. However, without this fund, there is
a current project underway to bring them access.
Ladrum’s explanation also added this: “Neither the
resolution nor the enabling legislation mention the approximately $3.3 billion
allocated to Texas for broadband infrastructure under the federal 2021 infrastructure
law.”
So, while I would like to see high-speed internet go to all
parts of Texas, a constitutional amendment might not be the way to accomplish
that. And then there are the concerns Mark Ramsey shares: It breaks the
constitutional “spending caps,” it grows government, and it uses technology
that is rapidly becoming obsolete. So, sorry to split with my son, but I’m
voting No on Proposition 8.
Proposition
Number 9 (HJR 2) MORE $$$ TO TRS
SOS:
HJR 2 proposes a constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to
provide a cost-of- living adjustment to eligible annuitants of the Teacher
Retirement System of Texas (TRS). The proposed amendment also would authorize
the legislature to appropriate money from the general revenue fund to the Texas
Comptroller of Public Accounts to pay the cost-of-living adjustment.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
authorizing the 88th Legislature to provide a cost-of-living adjustment to
certain annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.”
This seems close on both sides, and some are simply not
weighing it. The fact is that the retired teachers haven’t had a cost-of-living
increase in many years. Mark Ramsey says, however, “This TEMPORARY stopgap
provision does not fix the structural problem and still breaks the constitutional
“spending caps.” He adds, “Bad compromise amendments rarely work out well for
anyone.” In comments on Facebook, when challenged on this, Mark Ramsey said, “I
rechecked my already extensive research and this could have been done without a
Constitutional Amendment (and has been done in the past without one). It is ‘breaking
the spending caps’ that makes this a Constitutional Amendment.” He’s probably
right; it could have been done without the need for a constitutional amendment.
Breaking the spending cap—that’s growing government spending bound by the
combination of population and inflation.
There’s still that problem of the needed cost-of-living
increases, in this time of high inflation, for people on fixed income. A decent
cost-of-living increase along the way would have prevented this current need to
exceed spending caps. So, while I see Mark’s reasoning, I’m still going to
vote Yes on Proposition 9.
Proposition
Number 10 (SJR 87) MEDICAL INVENTORY CARVE-OUT FROM PROPERTY TAXES
SOS: SJR 87 proposes a constitutional amendment to
allow the legislature to exempt from property taxation tangible personal
property held by a medical or biomedical manufacturer as a finished good or
used in the manufacturing or processing of medical or biomedical products.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment to
authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation equipment or
inventory held by a manufacturer of medical or biomedical products to protect
the Texas healthcare network and strengthen our medical supply chain.”
|
Proposition 10: MEDICAL
INVENTORY CARVE-OUT FROM PROPERTY TAXES
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
It looks like there’s consensus against this proposition.
Mark Ramsey calls it a lobbyist bill. Like the childcare proposition, it takes
your tax money to benefit someone else. According to Michael Landrum’s
explanation, its purpose is to encourage medical products companies to maintain
inventory. It doesn’t include an exemption for real estate property. We found
during COVID that our nation was too dependent on other nations, including our
enemies, for essential medical products. However, if that were found to be
essential, it could be addressed through regular legislation, without creating
a special sector in the state constitution. I’m voting No on Proposition 10.
Proposition
Number 11 (SJR 32) EL PASO BOND DEBT
SOS: SJR 32 proposes a constitutional amendment to
expand the authority of the legislature with regard to conservation and
reclamation districts in El Paso County. The Texas Constitution permits
conservation and reclamation districts in certain counties across the state to
issue bonds to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational
facilities but does not currently provide this authority to El Paso County. The
proposed amendment would add conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso
County to those districts currently allowed, if authorized by general law, to
issue bonds supported by property taxes to fund the development and maintenance
of parks and recreational facilities. The proposed amendment would not limit
the powers of the legislature or of a conservation and reclamation district
with respect to parks and recreational facilities as those powers currently
exist.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in
El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the
development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities.”
|
Proposition 11: EL
PASO PARK BOND DEBT
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
N
|
N
|
|
|
N
|
Y
|
|
This appears to be a local issue. According to Michael
Landrum, the history is that in 2003 certain counties were granted, through
state constitutional amendment, the ability to issue bonds for development and maintenance
of parks and recreation facilities. El Paso County was left out of that list.
They attempted to get the ability through amendment in 2011 but failed. Some of
my sources are not weighing in, because it’s local. Mark Ramsey adds, “Not a
statewide issue. Taking on debt is not good for El Paso either.” Mark Goloby
wasn’t a full Yes; he said, “If El Paso wants to float bonds for parks, OK?”
Political Sphere points out that this issue is one that has to go through the
constitutional amendment process, but he says, ultimately it’s a local issue
for El Paso, so he’d rather not weigh in. Rather than leave my ballot blank, I’m
voting No on Proposition 11.
Proposition
Number 12 (HJR 134) ABOLISH GALVESTON COUNTY ELECTED TREASURER
SOS: HJR 134 proposes a constitutional amendment to
abolish the office of County Treasurer in Galveston County. The amendment would
authorize the Galveston County Commissioners Court to employ or contract with a
qualified person or designate another county officer to perform any functions
that would have been performed by the County Treasurer. The proposed amendment
would take effect only if a majority of the voters of Galveston County voting
on the proposition favor the amendment.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston
County.”
|
Proposition 12: ABOLISH GALVESTON COUNTY ELECTED
TREASURER
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
N
|
Y
|
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
This is essentially another local issue, but it probably
merits our attention. In larger counties, many of the traditional duties of the
county treasurer’s office are taken on by other departments, making the office
somewhat redundant. But the alternative is to make the position appointed, in
which case the commissioners court doesn’t have independent oversight. Michael
Landrum’s explanation notes this: “Even if a majority of Texas voters approve
it, the proposed amendment would take effect only if a majority of the voters
of Galveston County voting on the proposition favor the amendment.” And the
amendment would allow the county (the commissioners court) to hire a treasurer
or assign the duties to another county officer.
Political Sphere says, “While this is another one where it
would be reasonable to abstain as a local issue, because the current Galveston
County Treasurer ran on a promise that they would abolish the position, I am going
to vote against, and hope it gets voted down just to see what the Treasurer
does.” He adds that he has experienced the debate in his county. He adds, I
think it is generally better to have a separate Treasurer department and
Auditor department to act as checks on each other.”
Mark Ramsey notes that, while it is not a statewide issue, “Making
an elected position appointed (and hence concentrating power more) is rarely a
good move. Treasurers can be an effective check on Commissioners Court.” In
fact, in our last county treasurer race, the conservative candidate ran on his
ability to check our liberal Commissioners Court by holding the purse strings.
So, while it’s a local issue, I’m voting No on Proposition 12 to favor
elected oversight of county commissioners court spending of taxpayer dollars.
Proposition
Number 13 (HJR 107) OLDER AND OLDER JUDGES
SOS:
HJR 107 proposes a constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory
retirement age for state justices and judges. Currently, the Texas Constitution
establishes that justices and judges of the appellate courts, district courts,
and criminal district courts must retire on the expiration of the term during
which they reach the age of 75 years or an earlier age, not less than 70 years,
as the legislature may prescribe. The proposed amendment would change the
mandatory retirement age for justices and judges of the appellate courts,
district courts, and criminal district courts to 79 years or an earlier age,
not less than 75 years, as the legislature may prescribe. The proposed
amendment also would remove the provision stating that justices and judges may
only serve until December 31 of their fourth year in office if they reach the
age of 75 years in the first four years of a six-year term.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment to
increase the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges.”
|
Proposition 13: OLDER AND OLDER JUDGES
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
N
|
N
|
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
Currently the state constitution requires judges to retire
at the end of their term following their turning 75 (with some variation
depending on type of court). Let’s trust that that provision was put into the
constitution for good reason—and we’re not seeing any good arguments for
lifting this retirement age. Mark Ramsey says it’s a Democrat bill. He says, “As
a long term ‘term limits’ advocate, longer terms are not a good idea. Let them
retire as the Constitution specifies.”
Political Sphere adds this perspective: “While there are
good judges that could reasonably judge ast the current mandatory retirement age,
the mandatory retirement age also force retirement of others who are losing their
justness in their old age. Further, I do not believe the mandatory retirement
age does anything to prevent the good judges from retiring and continuing to
act as a visiting judge as the need arises.” I’m voting No on Proposition 13.
Proposition
Number 14 (SJR 74) SHOVEL $$$ TO STATE PARKS
SOS:
SJR 74 proposes a constitutional amendment to establish the centennial parks
conservation fund as a trust fund outside the state treasury. The fund could be
used, in accordance with general law, only for the creation and improvement of
state parks. The centennial parks conservation fund would consist of: (1) money
appropriated, credited, or transferred to the fund by the legislature; (2)
gifts, grants, and donations received by the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD) or its successor for a purpose for which money in the fund
may be used; and (3) investment earnings and interest earned on amounts
credited to the fund. The proposed amendment would authorize the legislature to
appropriate money from the centennial parks conservation fund to TPWD or its successor
for the creation and improvement of state parks.
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment
providing for the creation of the centennial parks conservation fund to be used
for the creation and improvement of state parks.”
|
Proposition 14: SHOVEL $$$ TO STATE PARKS
|
|
Mark Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom
Nobis
|
Mark Goloby
|
Political Sphere
|
|
N
|
N
|
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
There’s pretty much a consensus on this one too. As Mark
Ramsey has pointed out on several of these proposed amendments, making it a
constitutional amendment is a way of going beyond the constitutional spending
caps. He also adds here, “Grows government. Murky—piles money into the hands of
bureaucrats.”
Political Sphere says, “While funding of state parks is a
good idea, I think the creation of this separate fund will potentially hinder
future budgets by locking in funds set aside for state parks, while at the same
time hindering funding for state parks by allowing legislators to avoid sending
any general funds to state parks by justifying that it has a separate fund set
to take care of it.” Unintended consequences, in other words.
Parks are currently funded by user fees, entrance fees, and
legislative appropriations. If you remember back to 2019, we voted to have a
portion of sales tax on sporting goods to be dedicated to state parks. Nothing
ever seems to be enough for people who want to spend tax money. Setting up a
new bureaucracy as a dedicated fund is probably not an improvement over current
funding sources. I’m voting No on Proposition 14.
Here's a full grid of recommendations, including mine. Blanks
mean either no comment or neutral.
|
TEXAS
2023 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
|
|
|
Mark
Ramsey
|
TTP
|
Huffines
Liberty
|
TFFR
|
Tom Nobis
|
Mark
Goloby
|
Political
Sphere
|
Linda Nuttall
|
|
Prop
1: Right to Farm
|
Y
|
Y
|
|
Y
|
Y
|
?
|
N
|
Y
|
|
Prop
2: Childcare
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
|
Prop
3: No Wealth Tax
|
Y
|
Y
|
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
|
Prop
4: Property Taxes
|
Y
|
Y
|
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
|
Prop
5: $$ to Academia
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
|
Prop
6: $$ to Water
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
Y
|
|
Prop
7: $$ to Utilities
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
Y
|
|
Prop
8: $$ to Telecoms
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
Y
|
N
|
|
Prop
9: $$ to TRS
|
N
|
|
|
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
|
Prop
10: $$ to Med Suppliers
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
|
Prop
11: El Paso bonds
|
N
|
N
|
|
|
N
|
Y
|
|
N
|
|
Prop
12: Galveston Tr.
|
N
|
Y
|
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
N
|
|
Prop
13: Older Judges
|
N
|
N
|
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
|
Prop
14: $$ to State Parks
|
N
|
N
|
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
N
|
Resources:
