I have been asked by several constituents for my views on the upcoming November 7th Constitutional Elections. So here goes. In general, our legislators have put forward numerous constitutional amendments that really shouldn’t be amendments, particularly where they are essentially creating new debt. We shouldn’t need a constitutional amendment to allocate funds. Funding needs change over time as do economic conditions affecting every taxpayer. In addition, well intentioned programs don’t always deliver the desired benefits and should not be enshrined in our constitution. We currently have a significant budget surplus and funds for worthy causes can and should be allocated via the normal legislative appropriations process. Now for my specific recommendations:
Proposition 1 – HJR 126 “The constitutional amendment protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management.”
Recommended vote: YES.
Proposition 2 – SJR 64 “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.”
Recommended vote: NO. I am not a fan of tax exemptions. They are too easily abused and once you start offering exemptions, where does it stop? There are always other needs that could be considered equally valid. Also, tax exemptions result in higher taxes for everyone else.
Proposition 3 – HJR 132 “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.”
Recommended vote: YES.
Proposition 4 – HJR 2 from the second special session “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.”
Recommended vote: YES. However, this amendment is a very disappointing attempt to redistribute excess revenue. With the State Comptroller pushing Appraisal Districts to dramatically increase property values, this relief will be short lived.
Proposition 5 – HJR 3 “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.”
Recommended vote: NO. Our universities already have more than sufficient endowments and budget surpluses. What guarantee do we have that appropriate research projects will be undertaken and whether they actually drive the state economy in the right direction. Let’s not create an enshrined program that wastes taxpayer dollars.
Proposition 6 – SJR 75 “The constitutional amendment creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state.”
Recommended vote: NO. We already have a debt instrument for water infrastructure. This will only create more debt / higher taxes and likely unintended consequences.
Proposition 7 – SJR 93 “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities.”
Recommended vote: NO. This should be funded through the regular appropriations process in the legislature, not via a constitutional amendment. We currently have a budget surplus and this would be a good use for some of those funds, provided they focus on reliable and cost-effective proven technologies (e.g., burning clean natural gas that we have plenty of in Texas).
Proposition 8 – HJR 125 “The constitutional amendment creating the broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband access and assist in the financing of connectivity projects.”
Recommended vote: NO. This should be funded through the regular appropriations process in the legislature, not via a constitutional amendment.
Proposition 9 – HJR 2, regular session “The constitutional amendment authorizing the 88th Legislature to provide a cost-of-living adjustment to certain annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.”
Recommended vote: YES. It is sad that cost of living adjustments for our retired teachers have not been funded through the regular appropriations process in the legislature. However, the retired Texas teachers haven’t had a COLA in close to 20 years, so I’ll go along with this one. In the 88th Legislative Session, the Legislature designated $5 billion in state funding to support the COLA and supplemental payments for the Texas Retired Teachers Association via SB 10. Constitutional authorization is necessary for the Legislature to fully fund the COLA because the amount being appropriated from general revenue funds exceeds the state’s constitutional spending cap limit. Makes me wonder if the teachers’ union has had its priorities right…
Proposition 10 – SJR 87 “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.”
Recommended vote: NO. Tax exemptions are too easily abused and once you start offering exemptions, where does it stop? There are always other needs that could be considered equally valid. Also, tax exemptions result in higher taxes for everyone else.
Proposition 11 – SJR 32 “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.”
Recommended vote: NO. Why do we need a constitutional amendment for El Paso County to take on more debt?
Proposition 12 – HJR 134 “The constitutional amendment providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County.”
Recommended vote: No.
Our Kerr County Treasurer, Tracy Soldan, recently wrote an article for the KDT in which she made the following points. “Abolishing the county treasurer’s office would eliminate the separation of powers in Galveston County and concentrate power over county money solely in the commissioners court. That’s dangerous for all Texans.
The treasurer is the chief custodian, administrator and disburser of county funds. State laws precisely govern their conduct of duties, and they post a personal bond to ensure they meet this bar. Because they are elected, county treasurers are independent — not beholden to any county official or employee. In fact, Texas law authorizes treasurers to challenge the commissioners court if they question the legality and propriety of a payment order.
An elected county treasurer has mandatory training requirements, which must be met to remain in office.
The treasurer’s independence sometimes irks commissioners, which is a byproduct of good checks and balances.” I agree with her. Let’s not set a bad precedent because Galveston has a problem.
Proposition 13 – HJR 107 “The constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges.”
Recommended vote: NO. This would increase the retirement age from 75 to 79. While many judges may be fit to continue to contribute beyond 75, I personally prefer to leave the retirement age as is.
Proposition 14 – SJR 74 “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the centennial parks conservation fund to be used for the creation and improvement of state parks.”
Recommended vote: NO. State parks creation and improvement should be funded through the regular appropriations process in the legislature, not via a constitutional amendment.