Proposed Changes to the Texas Constitution

Perry has made Election Day, 2011 (Nov. 8) as the day for Texans to vote on 10 proposed changes to the Texas Constitution. As a registered Texas voter, I wanted to get some clarifications and your views on these proposed changes.

Here they are:

PROPOSITION 1 — 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.

PROPOSITION 2 — The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.

PROPOSITION 3 — The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.

PROPOSITION 4 — The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area. The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates.

PROPOSITION 5 — The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund.

PROPOSITION 6 — The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the permanent school fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school fund to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund.

PROPOSITION 7 — 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 8 — The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity.

PROPOSITION 9 — The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision.

PROPOSITION 10 — The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."

Do Texans have to amend their Constitution each time they wanna issue bonds for something?

Man, that constitution must look messy.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I think I'm rather more shocked that there are such constitutional provisions in the State constitution of Texas than that there's anything particularly scary on the ballot.

Yes, I realize that state constitutions are considerably longer than the U.S. ones, but all this talk of specific taxes being required or banned for certain activities by the state constitution has me scratching my head.

^ It happens in every state.

Is that... bonds and spending?

How conservative.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

The proposition about the education funding makes me leery of the whole thing. He's already proven to not really give a fuck about education spending.

Frankly, I can imagine with this stuff that our economy would tank pretty quick. (Texas's. This state has weathered the recession better than most, but taking out our tax revenue will probably sink us.)

No, Major Tom, it doesn't "happen in every state"".

Illinois has had a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot only 20 times since 1974. (1 in '74; 2 each in '78 and '80; 1 each in '82 and '84; 2 in '86; 3 in '88; 1 in '90; 2 each in '92 and '94; 1 in 2008 and 1 in 2010. (We had a Constitutional Convention in 1970.)

edited 24th Aug '11 10:38:48 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Sounds like more "Big Government" financial meddling by liberals to complicate the tax system to their benefit. How do we know this won't open the door to full-blown socialism or an increase in taxes for hard-working Americans down the road?

Trope-tag edited to prevent Poe's Law confusion.

edited 25th Aug '11 2:26:08 AM by ForlornDreamer

not sure if srs.

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....

Considering it's State Wide... and in Texas... I sincerely doubt it.

Forlorn, Texas politics are predominantly Republican right now. And Perry is a Republican himself. They're attempting in some of these propositions (like the veteran's widows one) to cut taxes. Which Republicans have been doing. It is certainly going to give "Big Government" some sort of powers, but it is in no way a liberal move.

Also, it's an amendment to the Texas Constitution. While it's a sign of what Perry would likely try do as President, it doesn't actually mean that any of that stuff would get applied nationwide.

edited 25th Aug '11 12:29:43 AM by AceofSpades

This is at the state level by a Republican, nice try.

The first proposition seems to be getting rid of property tax on the homes of disabled veterans and their spouses. I don't see a problem with that, most of us aren't exactly rich.

The last two are just slight governors powers.. He can pardon someone who's done a term of community service, and then the last one is if a city official goes from one officer to another, the term limit resets. So if I was the Sheriff and has a year on my term in a city with two year terms, and then I suddenly become treasurer, the two years resets.

That's what I got out of it anyway.

Hm, I got slightly different interpretations. Don't we have a lawyer to translate for us?

Fight smart, not fair.

One thing I picked up from my Political Science teacher*

was that anything that included "amend the state constitution" should be automatically voted "No" because of how screwy the state constitution then ends up.

I have to issue with this one, I'd vote yes.

Um, why does Texas have to amend their state constitution to issue bonds? Also, what was the previous debt limit on this if they want to raise it to $6bil? My default vote is "No."

This doesn't say how much, nor how these loans will be managed and issued, so I'm going to have to go with a definite "No" here.

Ah, an ad valorem tax is a property tax or sales tax. (Why couldn't they just say so?) I'm reading this as, "Raise taxes - but we're not giving you permission to raise taxes." So ... yeah, a "No" vote again.

What kind of interlocal contracts are they talking about? And why would a tax be required? However, this appears to be allowing cities/counties to join together for collective bargaining. Nah, couldn't be from a Republican governor. Without more details, I can't say, so I lean towards "No".

This sounds like they're allowing some other governmental agency to decide which schools get to draw more/less money. Definite "No" vote here.

This is pretty clear - raise property taxes to build parks. Are you sure this guy is a Republican? Well, it's my second "Yes" vote.

This sounds like it's setting additional property taxes on undeveloped land depending on its water usage capabilities. Another "Yes" vote from me.

He needs a state constitutional amendment to issue a pardon to someone who completed their sentance? Texas is more fucked up than I thought. But a "Yes" vote from me.

I'm not sure what the original does in this version - if someone is currently holding one office, then runs for and wins another office, then their vacant space has to be filled, but I don't know what this amendment does to change that. Without more details, another "No" vote.

Overall, only 4 "Yes" votes from me. Of course, IMO about six of these don't even need to be ballot measure, because they shouldn't be part of the state constitution.

@Forlorn Dreamer: Yeah, I'd say you pretty much nailed it. A good number of these don't match stated Republican goals, much less Tea Party ones.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

You require constitutional amendments for doing this stuff? :P

^ Some states do. Some don't. Texas apparently needs to amend the constitution for stuff that Illinois does by amending the laws.

Proposition 1: In Illinois, that would require a constitutional amendment, because the constitution states something like "all properties must be taxed equally, according to the tax laws", and it's a proposal to remove some properties from taxation completely, not simply adjust tax rates.

Prop 2,3, 4, 7 and 8: Wouldn't be Constitutional amendments in Illinois; Bond issues can be passed by the General Assembly or by public referendum.

Prop 5: Wouldn't be a constitutional amendment in Illinois, because it's already explicitly permitted. That means it would take a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.

Prop 6: Might be, since it appears to be granting power over one department's funding management to another department.

Prop 9: Since it's changing the powers of the governor, and those powers are set out in the Constitution, yes, it would also be a constitutional amendment in Illinois. Except that the Illinois Constitution already says

That's it. That's the whole section on the governor's power to grant pardons.

Prop 10: Not a Constitutional amendment, because each governmental body sets its own rules.

edited 25th Aug '11 10:33:30 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Regarding pardons, thanks to Ma Ferguson, the governor really doesn't have much more than veto authority(if that) over them.

edited 25th Aug '11 6:18:53 PM by 20LogRoot10

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan