Politics Magazine
Texans will go to the polls on November 3rd. In many locations, there are no actual candidates being voted on -- but that doesn't mean it's not important. There are seven amendments to the Texas Constitution being voted on. Those amendments are listed below -- along with the recommendation from Progress Texas on how to vote on them. I think their recommendations are good.
PROPOSITION 1: TOSS UP
Text: The constitutional amendment increasing the amount of the residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxation for public school purposes from $15,000 to $25,000, providing for
a reduction of the limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for those purposes on the homestead of an elderly or disabled person to reflect the increased exemption amount, authorizing the legislature to prohibit a political subdivision that has adopted an optional residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxation from reducing the amount of or repealing the exemption, and prohibiting the enactment of
a law that imposes a transfer tax on a transaction that conveys fee simple title to real property.
On one hand, increasing the homestead exemption
is one of the fairest ways to cut taxes. Indeed,
Texas Democrats have called for an increase in the homestead exemption for more than a decade – so it’s easy to see this GOP-led initiative as merely a long- delayed realization of a good idea progressives had
a long time ago. Homeowners appreciate any relief from property taxes, even if that relief does nothing more than slow down rising rates, and cutting taxes for homeowners is certainly more equitable than giving tax cuts exclusively to big corporations.
On the other hand, the cost of this tax cut is significant. There’s no long-term plan for how Texas will pay back the estimated $1.2 billion in lost money for schools; surplus funds will cover the cost in the short-run, but what happens if we don’t collect as much money as we project? Relying on court-imposed changes of Texas’ school finance system is a risky maneuver. At a time when our state budget has yet to catch up from the devastating cuts of 2011, prioritizing tax cuts for some (renters won’t benefit from this tax cut) over investing in community-wide improvements in health care or education can reasonably be considered irresponsible.
Our staff is split on this issue. Rather than tell you how to vote, we encourage you to make a decision that best reflects the needs of you and your family.
PROPOSITION 2: YES
Text: “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 100 percent or totally disabled veteran who died before the law authorizing a residence homestead exemption for such a veteran took effect.
In 2011, we recommended and Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment that allows surviving spouses of disabled veterans to be exempt from property taxes on the current value of their home. That proposition was forward-looking; Prop 2 would extend this to spouses who would have qualified for the exemption if it had been available to them prior to 2011. Prop 2 would only apply to approximately 3,800 surviving spouses of totally disabled veterans, with a minimal impact to the state budget.
This exemption only applies to spouses of disabled veterans that remain in the residence of the surviving spouse, and is only granted if the spouse has not remarried. Additionally, legislation passed by the Legislature would ensure there is no disproportionate impact on any one community or school district that may have a uniquely large number of people eligible for this tax break within the community.
PROPOSITION 3: NO
Text: The constitutional amendment repealing the requirement that state officers elected by voters statewide reside in the state capitol.
Prop 3 would permit the Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Land Commissioner, Comptroller, Attorney General, and Railroad Commissioners to live outside of Austin. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and statewide court officials would still be required to live in the capitol city.
This amendment was originally conceived as a way for Texas’ GOP elected officials to escape prosecution from corruption charges here in Travis County. So
when Attorney General Ken Paxton is indicted for violating securities law – as he is right now – he
could claim residence in a county with a friendlier, Republican-leaning district attorney. A different law passed that allows Paxton and his GOP colleagues to live elsewhere, making the Republicans’ initial purpose of this amendment unnecessary – but there’s still no reason to enshrine a bad idea into the constitution.
Some say that technology allows officials to do more telecommuting from work, and/or that conservative Republicans should not be forced to live in a progressive city like Austin. But what happens
when a Comptroller decides to telecommute for a critical meeting in Austin and the internet goes down? What happens when the Attorney General ends up three hours late to a critical public hearing because the interstate from Dallas to Austin is shut down?
State government officials should be required to work where the seat of government is. If they don’t like how progressive Austin is, they should live here and try to change it – not change the Constitution to accommodate their personal political preferences.
PROPOSITION 4: YES
Text: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit professional sports team charitable foundations to conduct charitable raffles.
Prop 4 allows Texas’ professional sports teams to host what is known as a “50/50” raffle at their home games. These are raffles where contestants (who must be present at the game) can enter to win cash prizes. The payouts are then split 50/50 with the contestant winner and a charity of the organization’s choice – typically
a youth, education, or community program affiliated with the professional sports team. Since this could be considered gambling, a constitutional amendment is required to allow teams’ to participate in such raffles.
If passed, ten Texas teams could host the raffles:
the Houston Astros and Texas Rangers (baseball);
the Houston Rockets, Dallas Mavericks, and San Antonio Spurs (basketball); the Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans (football); the Dallas Stars (hockey); and the Houston Dynamo and FC Dallas (soccer). The accompanying legislation for this amendment prevents these teams from profiting from the raffle, and ensures that only teams that existed for three years prior to the law going into effect may participate.
At first, we were hesitant to recommend the expansion of a raffle system that utilizes a charitable cause to improve branding for sports franchises, some of which are valued at over a billion dollars. However, after reviewing the safeguards in the law and considering the fact that charity raffles are merely optional to fans attending games anyway, we believe the potential value of funds that could go to community-focused programs outweighed our concerns. Prop 4 is an easy way to
let communities support those in need, and we hope similar provisions are considered for organizations other than professional sports teams in the future.
PROPOSITION 5: YES
Text: The constitutional amendment to authorize counties with a population of 7,500 or less to perform private road construction
and maintenance.
In 1980, Texas adopted a constitutional amendment that allowed counties with a population of 5,000 or less to build and maintain private roads – because it is often difficult for them to find private contractors to do the work. This simply bumps up that population threshold to 7,500, impacting approximately 20 counties in Texas – including one county that mostly grew in population because of a new prison. This amendment is a simple fix that lets counties keep their roads safe.
PROPOSITION 6:
Text: The constitutional amendment recognizing the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation.
There is no threat to hunting, fishing, or harvesting wildlife in Texas, and the people who suggest conservation efforts are limiting any of those outdoor activities are probably the same ones who thought Jade Helm was a U.S. military invasion of Texas. Conspiracies aside, there is no negative consequence if this amendment passes. Then again, there is no need for
it to pass, either, since it changes absolutely nothing. We recommend skipping it entirely. Or voting for it passionately. Whatever. There’s literally no way you could screw this one up.
Also, that shrug symbol above that you may have seen on Facebook is called an “awl.” Learning that random piece of information is probably more valuable to your life than this amendment will be to anyone in Texas.
PROPOSITION 7: NO
Text: The constitutional amendment dedicating certain sales and use tax revenue and motor vehicle sales, use, and rental tax revenue to the state highway fund to provide funding for nontolled roads and the reduction of certain transportation- related debt.
Just like Texas’ public schools and health care systems, Texas’ roads are chronically underfunded. The reason is that Republican state officials are unwilling to close egregious tax loopholes for big corporations in order to invest in the infrastructure the people of Texas deserve. One analysis by the New York Times found that Texas allows $19 billion in tax exemptions every year. With that kind of tax system, it’s no wonder we struggle paying for better schools, hospitals, and roads.
Prop 7 is an end-run attempt by lawmakers to pay more for roads without having to close any tax loopholes. Or as the Houston Chronicle put it, “This Rube Goldberg constitutional contraption is the outgrowth of lawmakers unwilling to raise the gas tax or user fees to pay for the state’s transportation needs.”
This amendment constitutionally dedicates up to
$5 billion in state tax dollars to transportation. The guaranteed appropriation would be in place until 2032, could be temporarily ratcheted back with a 2/3 vote of lawmakers, and can be extended in 10-year increments with a majority vote of legislators.
We don’t believe in rewarding cowardice, and that’s exactly what Prop 7 is: a coward’s attempt to get permission from Texas voters so legislators can forego real funding solutions for our state’s infrastructure. Prop 7 prioritizes our roads above our schools and health systems, and further limits the amount of discretionary revenue the Texas Legislature may access for other important budget items. We strongly recommend a “no” vote on Prop 7.
