The Houston Chronicle has at the end of each of their recommendations about the proposed amendments the following language:
As is usual in odd-year elections, Houston voters will have an outsized say in the outcome of the voting on state constitutional amendments. This owes to the larger turnout here for City of Houston mayoral, council and controller elections, as well as elections for HISD board members. There are no comparable local elections in other large Texas cities.
This accident of the electoral calendar places a special obligation on Houston voters to cast well-informed votes on the constitutional amendments.
As a general rule, I lean towards NO until otherwise persuaded. The Texas Constitution is notoriously lengthy with over 450 amendments. Yes, 450. Firming my general oppositional position is the YES endorsement Conservative Republicans of Texas has given every amendment.
The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.
I think the Austin Chronicle best describes Proposition 2:
Just another backdoor way to slash taxes on valuable property, thereby undermining the public schools and other community needs.
The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.
Proposition 4: YES
The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.
“AAA-Fund Texas” strongly recommends a YES vote for Proposition 4. AAA-Fund endorsee State Representative Hubert Vo supports the proposed amendment as well. The University of Houston, UT Dallas, UT Arlington, UTEP, UT San Antonio, Texas Tech, University of North Texas will all have an opportunity become better centers of higher learning If the proposed amendment becomes part of the state’s constitution. Further sweetening the favorability of this amendment, the esteemed positions of The University of Texas and Rice will not be threatened. Aside from a few wingnuts, everyone agrees with this proposed amendment, which passed with unanimous support in the legislature.
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.
The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram best explains Proposition 7 in recommending a NO.
A Fort Worth City Council member can’t join the Texas State Guard, but a Tarrant County commissioner can. Honest, that’s the way it is under the Texas Constitution.
That council member could join the National Guard or any U.S. military reserve outfit. But not the Texas State Guard. The state constitution says no one can hold more than one civic office for which they get paid.
Prop 7 would change that by adding the Texas State Guard to a list of dual-office positions excepted from the constitutional rule.
A better way to do this, rather than holding an election every time some exception seems like a good idea, is to scrap the list and give the Legislature the authority to make exceptions by statute. Voters could hold the Legislature responsible for bad decisions.
While I agree with the Star-Telegram on the merits, that’s not where we’re at. We can fix this loophole now and next cycle fix all the loopholes.
The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.
The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.
Proposition 9 deals with the intersection of public and private land rights even more so than Proposition 11. If a hurricane, global warming, or other event moves a beach, private formerly non-beach land will become public land. I support this amendment because beaches should be accessible to the public. If someone wants to buy and build on land that could easily become beach, they’re taking their chances.
The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.
The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.
Burnt Orange Report’s endorsements, which Kuff and I tend to agree with are as follows:
YES on Propositions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
NO on Propositions 1, 2, 3, 11
Burnt Orange Report did not make an endorsement for Proposition 10, which Kuff will support.
- Justin Gillenwater
