November Amendments for Texas

Sunday, 6 November 2011 by Marcus Aquinas.

Since this is an odd-numbered year, the November election date usually passes unremarked in Texas as most local offices are elected in May and state-wide offices are elected in even-numbered years. This year, however, we have 10 proposed amendments to the state constitution which require voter ratification. Texas is either #1 or #2 as far as number of times its state constitution has been amended (when you’re second-best, you try harder, I guess).

Generally speaking, amendments fall into one of three categories. First, because many county offices are mandated by the constitution, counties that want to eliminate, consolidate or otherwise reorganize must seek constitutional approval to do so. Second, thanks to Reconstruction, our state legislature is extremely limited in what it can and cannot do. Providing authority to do some things requires a constitutional amendment. Third, there are some people out there who think that a constitutional amendment is better than a law, so they propose amendments when lobbying their state officials might accomplish the same end.

With those prefacing remarks, here’s my take on the latest batch.

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.”

Sounds nice on paper. We all want to honor our vets, especially those who have been disabled in service to our country, but this isn’t for the vets. They already have the exemption and the state wants to transfer that exemption to their surviving spouse. I find no compelling reason to believe that a surviving spouse cannot get a job and pay those taxes. If it’s an issue of the spouse being hit with taxes owed due to the loss of the exemption, then I’m all for a method of working that out. But the amendment isn’t trying to do that. It’s just passing on the exemption from a disabled person to a non-disabled person. “Nay.”

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.”

General obligation bonds are typically issued for capital improvements, not for general operational expenses. All this does is raise the debt ceiling and I don’t see a problem with it. It will mean higher taxes, but that’s kind of how it is with capital improvements and Texas’ population isn’t getting any smaller. Water availability is critical. Short answer? “Yea”.

Proposition 3: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.”

Here’s the short version: Texas wants to borrow money in order to loan money. Not only “no”, but “hell no.” If the state wants to loan money to students in order to finance higher education, lets do it through the general state revenues rather than putting it on the credit card. A resounding “Nay!”

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, 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.”

This is apparently another of those things the legislature cannot presently do. This is not obligating the state to borrow or repay. It is strictly for the counties. Since the county commissioners are answerable to their constituencies, I don’t see a problem with letting them do that, but I’d rather see them do it directly through taxes rather than “borrow now, worry about repayment after I’m out of office”. On the whole, I think “Yea,” but grudgingly so and only because county governments are ultimately answerable to their constituencies.

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.”

Hmmm. We’re going to let you make agreements which might cost money, but we’re not going to require that you provide any method of repayment if it does. Can we all make like horses? “Neigh!”

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 fun 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.”

A really wordy way of saying it. Because Texas was never a territory of the United States, the public lands in Texas belong to Texas. The Republic of Texas, under Mirabeau Lamar, set aside public lands to help finance public education back around 1840. With some (OK, “many”) modifications, the system survives today. Some revenues from public lands go toward public education and the amendment seems to want to authorize the General Land Office to be able to increase its contributions to the Available School Fund, especially those that come from land use revenues (oil and gas revenues, grazing fees, and that sort of thing). While I do see a downside to it down the road, the current state of Texas finances would make it prudent in the short-term and it does not appear to encumber the principal of the Permanent School Fund. I give it a grudging “yea”.

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.”

Since I live in El Paso County and vote, and as long as the country commissioners are willing to feel my boot if they abuse the notion, I don’t have a problem with it. Increasing property taxes is a good way to get that boot moving in their direction, but since I won’t be suffering alone in that regard, I’m good with it. Note that it does not authorize a parks system, but merely permits the creation of one if the voters in El Paso County choose to do so. That’s a topic for us and all we’re doing is asking permission to discuss it and implement it if that’s the general consensus in this neck of the woods. To steal a line from 1776, "I’ve never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.” An unqualified “Yea.”

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.”

Cacti, roadrunners, rattlesnakes and coyotes don’t pay much in the way of taxes. Consequently, this type of land generates next to nothing in the way of revenue unless its value lies in something other than simple real estate. The constitution already allows some lands to be taxed on their productive capacity rather than their real estate value. The proposition adds water resources to those few other uses. I don’t necessarily have to like it (give the government the power to tax something and they will do so), but I can see that it’s a practical solution to a perennial problem and there aren’t any others being proposed aside from “let’s keep doing things the way we have been”. How’s that workin’ for ya? “Yea.”

Proposition 9: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community service.”

Considering that the governor’s options on the matter of pardons are pretty much limited to what the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles tells him he can do, I don’t see an issue. The problem is that those who are operating under deferred adjudication haven’t been convicted of anything and, thus, are ineligible for pardons. While deferred adjudication doesn’t appear on the criminal record as a conviction, it does appear as an arrest and as probation, so I can see where the granting of a pardon and the chance to expunge the record could be a good thing. And, again, the governor is very limited in this regard. I give it a “Yea.”

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.”

Some county officials must resign their offices if they announce their candidacy for another office more than a year before their term expires (almost all terms expire on December 31). New filing deadlines have moved the candidacy filing date to December 2, so a County Clerk who wants to run for Sheriff, for example, would be forced to resign under the existing rule. This would necessitate a special election to fill the vacancy rather than letting them serve out their term and also deprive the county of a somewhat- or well-experienced County Clerk. The proposition would allow a prospective candidate to meet the current filing deadline and still serve their term. While I’m not fond of the idea of running for office while neglecting your current duties, it would nevertheless reduce the number (and expense) of special elections. A grudging “yea” for being the lesser of two evils.

Posted in Politics, Musings and Thoughts, Education | No Comments »