Wiki_QA__##

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Title: Recommendations on Texas Constitutional Amendments

Original CoS Document (slug): [[https://conventionofstates.com/recommendations-on-texas-constitutional-amendments|recommendations-on-texas-constitutional-amendments]]

Login Required to view? No

Created: 2019-10-16 18:22:21

Updated: 2022-09-16 01:22:25

Published: 2019-10-15 03:00:00

Converted: 2025-04-14T21:04:47.610766038


----




Yes, there is an election this November 5 in Texas! In particular, there are number of proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution that Texas voters need to be informed about. 

The Convention of States team has looked over the amendments and here are our recommendations based on our principles of limited government and local control.

===== Proposition 1 =====

The constitutional amendment permitting a person to hold more than one office as a municipal judge at the same time.

**Summary:** Proposition 1 would allow a person to hold office as municipal judge in more than one municipality at the same time, regardless of whether the person was elected or appointed to each office.

**Supporters say: **Proposition 1 would make it easier for all cities to have qualified municipal court judges. These judges play an important role in the state’s judicial system, but many cities, especially smaller and rural ones, have trouble finding qualified candidates.

**Critics say:** Proposition 1 would create another exception to the long-standing constitutional prohibition against certain elected officials holding more than one paid public office. Amending this provision could set a precedent for further exceptions to the single-office rule.\\
\\
**COS recommended position:  Neutral**


----

===== 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 $200 million to provide financial assistance for the development of certain projects in economically distressed areas.

**Supporters say: **Proposition 2 would provide essential financing for necessary water and wastewater infrastructure projects in economically distressed areas of Texas.\\
\\
**COS recommended position:  OPPOSE**\\
Growing government and debt is very rarely the answer to any problem. Incentivizing the private sector is the most efficient way to solve problems such as these.


----

===== Proposition 3 =====

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of a portion of the appraised value of certain property damaged by a disaster.

**Critics say:** Proposition 3 would replace the current property reappraisal process after a disaster with a mandatory property tax exemption, possibly depriving local governments of necessary funds and removing local discretion.

**COS recommended position:  SUPPORT\\
**Solving problems at the lowest level possible is the most desirable solution.  This gives local governments the tools with which to provide tax relief for property owners.


----

===== Proposition 4 =====

The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual income tax, including a tax on an individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income.

**Critics say:** Proposition 4 is unnecessary because the Texas Constitution already includes a high bar for imposing a personal income tax by requiring that it be approved by a majority of voters in a statewide referendum.

**COS recommended position:  SUPPORT**\\
Once the government has access to a revenue stream (our income), they will not easily let go of it.  Passing Proposition 4 will make it much more difficult for future legislatures to pass a state income tax.\\
\\
//NOTE: Vote **YES** for NO STATE INCOME TAX.//


----

===== Proposition 5 =====

The constitutional amendment dedicating the revenue received from the existing state sales and use taxes that are imposed on sporting goods to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Historical Commission to protect Texas’ natural areas, water quality, and history by acquiring, managing, and improving state and local parks and historic sites while not increasing the rate of the state sales and use taxes.

**Critics say: **By creating constitutionally dedicated accounts, Proposition 5 would diminish the Legislature’s discretion to prioritize state needs when budgeting. Dedicated accounts give appropriators less flexibility in allocating funds and could lead to unnecessary growth of the state budget by requiring money to go to a particular area even if needs were greater in another.

**COS recommended position:  SUPPORT**\\
This amendment is needed because the Texas Legislature has been diverting these funds from their intended purpose.  This prevents them from diverting those funds and ensure that revenues raised are spent on their intended purpose.


----

===== Proposition 6 =====

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase by $3 billion the maximum bond amount authorized for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

**Supporters say:** Reauthorizing funding and continuing taxpayer support of the Cancer Research and Prevention Institute of Texas (CPRIT) under Proposition 6 is important to maintain the agency’s current level of activity and continue Texas’ national leadership in cancer research and prevention.

**COS recommended position:  OPPOSE**\\
The proper role of government is not to directly solve such problems, but to create an environment in which the free market is enabled and empowered to do so.


----

===== Proposition 7 =====

The constitutional amendment allowing increased distributions to the available school fund.

**Summary: **Proposition 7 would allow The General Land Office or State Board of Education to have the ability to distribute up to $600 million of the school fund, up from $300 million currently from state land and mineral rights dedicated to the support of public schools.

**Supporters say:** Proposition 7 would improve funding for public schools by doubling the constitutionally authorized annual distribution from the School Land Board to the Available School Fund. Recent investment returns realized by the land board would have allowed greater annual distributions were it not for the $300 million cap on distributions in the Texas Constitution.

**Critics say: **Proposition 7 would double the amount of revenue that the School Land Board could directly contribute to the Available School Fund without any assurances that the additional spending would improve education outcomes. Texas should be fiscally prudent by resisting continued growth in state spending.

**COS recommended position:  Neutral**


----

===== Proposition 8 =====

The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the flood infrastructure fund to assist in the financing of drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects.

**Supporters say:** By creating the Flood Infrastructure Fund, Proposition 8 would establish regional planning and coordination on flood mitigation projects to better provide for vital infrastructure in the state.

**COS recommended position:  OPPOSE**\\
Growing government and debt is very rarely the answer to any problem. Incentivizing the private sector is the most efficient way to solve problems such as these.


----

===== Proposition 9 =====

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation precious metal held in a precious metal depository located in this state.

**Critics say: **The state should not expand property tax exemptions when the property tax system as a whole is being examined and revised. Additional tax exemptions could reduce taxable property, and an evaluation of all exemptions should occur before more are added.

**COS recommended position:  SUPPORT**\\
Ad valorem taxes are merely another method of feeding the government beast and are a terrible idea.


----

===== Proposition 10 =====

The constitutional amendment to allow the transfer of a law enforcement animal to a qualified caretaker in certain circumstances.

**Critics say: **Because under current law the transfer of law enforcement animals may occur for a nominal fee, Proposition 10 is not necessary to achieve the transfer of such an animal to its handler’s care upon the animal’s retirement.

**COS recommended position: SUPPORT**\\
This proposition prevents a law enforcement agency (state or local) from profiting from the humanitarian act of caring for a law enforcement animal after retirement.


----

//Our thanks to the Texas House of Representatives for providing reference material to help explain the Texas Constitutional Amendments on the November 5th ballot.//

The full Texas House analysis can be found at: https://hro.house.texas.gov/pdf/focus/amend86.pdf

[[https://conventionofstates.com/files/tx-constitutional-amendment-recommendations/download|Click here to download a file]] containing these same recommendations in a form convenient for printing or emailing.