Explanatory statements for the November 3, 2009 constitutional amendment election from the Texas Secretary of State’s office. Below each proposition are voting recommendations and the arguments supporting that decision. In the case of some of the more debated proposals, arguments for and against each one are included.
Download a sample ballot: 2009 Constitutional Amendment Sample Ballot (PDF)
Proposition 1 (HJR 132)
HJR 132 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow a municipality or a county to issue bonds and notes to finance the purchase of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to military installations. The buffer areas would be used to prevent encroachment or to construct roadways utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation. The municipality or county may pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues for repayment of the bonds or notes.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “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.”
Vote Recommendations
YES
Rationale: While this departs from the tradition of not allowing our government to spend above their income, this will allow local governments to purchase land adjacent to military areas to keep the military areas from encroaching on the city development.
NO
Rationale: Allowing cities/counties to go into debt under the guise of preventing encroachment (which may or may not be occurring) sounds good, but will do more harm than good. Should that land be needed, the military will use eminent domain to take that land the town purchased; proposition eleven (below) would not apply in such instances. Because the money received through eminent domain takeovers would most likely not cover the community’s expenditure, it would leave them in debt and without any buffer.
Proposition 2 (HJR 36 – #1)
HJR 36 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide for the taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead, regardless of whether the property may have a higher value if it were used for other purposes.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “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.”
Vote Recommendations
YES
Rationale: This proposition departs from the tradition of local taxes being determined by local decision makers. However, it would keep local decision makers from redefining your residential property as potential business property and taxing it on the potential income value as a business.
Proposition 3 (HJR 36 – #3)
HJR 36 would amend the constitution to require the legislature to provide for the administration and enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”
Vote Recommendations
YES
Rationale: The amendment does not create a one-size-fits-all appraisal of land, but establishes a singular rubric. The local authority still has full decision making powers within that rubric. This would keep, for example, Dallas from using one method of determining the value of a property while Tyler uses a completely different formula, which can create over- or under-valuing of properties. It’s about a single method, not a single value. It’s like the PGA saying all golf courses have to follow certain rules of course design, yet each course maintains the authority to use whatever grass, size of greens, geographical layout, number of sand traps, etc. they choose. While they follow a singular rubric, they each have vastly different courses.
NO
Rationale: This goes beyond the above measure and defines all properties within a single framework. Not all properties in the state are the same and this assumes a “one size fits all” decision at state level to be better judgment than a local decision of the tax-assessor.
Proposition 4 (HJR 14 – #2)
HJR 14 would amend the constitution to establish the national research university fund to provide a source of funding that will enable emerging research universities in this state to develop into major research universities. The amendment would require the legislature to dedicate state revenue to the fund and to transfer the balance of the existing higher education fund to the national research university fund. This amendment would further require the legislature to establish the criteria by which a state university may become eligible to receive and use distributions from the fund.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “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.”
Vote Recommendations
NO
Rationale: Research is essential to achieving a higher standard of living. However, the recent amendment which allowed for $30 billion in debt to be established for cancer research was a bad step, and this appears to be a continuation of the same concept. Research should be funded through private funds or through budgeted items, not through bonds which create public debt. While the proposition does not say the funds would come through debts such as bonds, it does state that funds would be “required.” Thus, if all funds are already spent or allocated and no more in-budget resources are available, so be it, go into debt.
Proposition 5 (HJR 36 – #2)
HJR 36 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow for a single appraisal review board for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated reviews of tax appraisals.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “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.”
Vote Recommendations
YES
Rationale: This allows for local decision makers to combine tax districts rather than the state imposing upon and overriding local authority.
NO
Rationale: As this proposition is written, it would easily lead to achieving the state-wide rubric established by proposition three, but using a back door. How? Adjoining local/county tax districts create a regional board, resulting in adjoining regional boards. Under this proposition, these boards could be interpreted as tax appraisal districts. Thus designated, the adjoining regional boards could form a larger-scale oversight board. The end result: state-wide uniformity and control under the auspices of local control. The downside is this route would result in not just a rubric, but regulations imposed on local tax districts since the actual appraisal districts surrendered their sovereignty over to the boards, which surrendered to the eventual state. With each step, the new board creates new regulations beyond a mere rubric. The result would be state mandates and no local control.
Proposition 6 (HJR 116)
HJR 116 would amend the constitution to authorize the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds, subject to certain constitutional limits, for the purpose of selling land and providing home or land mortgage loans to veterans of the state.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans ’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.”
Vote Recommendations
NO
Rationale: While we owe our veterans our support, we must not follow the example of Congress by creating debt for each program we want to provide. If this service cannot be budgeted through the biennial budget, then it should not be offered.
Proposition 7 (HJR 127)
HJR 127 would amend the constitution 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 proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “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.”
Vote Recommendations
YES
Rationale: We proudly call our National Guard “citizen soldiers.” Our federal military cannot hold public office, but our National Guard is a Texas force comprised of “citizen soldiers.” Those citizens should be eligible for public office.
Proposition 8 (HJR 7)
HJR 7 would amend the constitution to authorize the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans’ hospitals in this state.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “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.”
Vote Recommendations
YES
Rationale: So long as the money provided is not from a source that creates public debt, we should be able to use budgeted or surplus properties for support of our veterans’ medical care.
NO
Rationale: The proposition does not specify or limit the source of the money, thus it will almost certainly come through bonds (debt).
Proposition 9 (HJR 102)
HJR 102 would define what is a state-owned public beach. The public, individually and collectively, would have an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The amendment would authorize the legislature to enact laws to protect these rights.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “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.”
Vote Recommendations
NO
Rationale: Private beaches should be designated as such by the deed of such properties. The legislature cannot override that private property right. Beaches that are public land must be accessible from public roads, but violation of existing private property rights to create this is unacceptable. Since this proposition does not define how the state declares a public beach, nor limit their ability to take over private property, it is too vague, opening the door to almost unlimited state power.
Proposition 10 (HJR 85)
HJR 85 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide that members of the governing board of an emergency services district may serve terms not to exceed four years.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”
Vote Recommendations
YES
Rationale: A special district government should be able to define their officers’ terms through their constitution and bylaws. However, term limits will keep the board under the supervision of their electorate.
NO
Rationale: The proposition does not allow the governing board to define an officer’s term; it allows the legislature to dictate the length of each term. Additionally, it never addresses the issue of term limits, but only the definition/length of an individual term.
Proposition 11 (HJR 14 – #1)
HJR 14 would amend the constitution to provide that the taking of private property for public use (“eminent domain”) is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “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.”
Vote Recommendations
YES
Rationale: The abuse of eminent domain by the US Supreme Court has brought about this necessary amendment. This would allow public seizure of private property only with adequate reimbursement and only for public use, not private.
Loading tweets...
Loading ...