No! 16 Times No!

The Texas Constitution describes the structure and function of the government of Texas. The current constitution took effect on February 15, 1876. It has been amended more than 400 times. Most of these amendments are due to the document's highly restrictive nature. The constitution limits the authority of the State of Texas to those powers explicitly granted to it; there is no state equivalent of the necessary-and-proper clause to facilitate controversial legislation. Because of the unwieldiness of the state constitution, there have been several proposals for a constitutional convention to propose a new constitution. In 1974, the Texas Legislature met in joint session as a convention, but failed to propose a new constitution. In 1975, the Legislature, meeting in regular session, revived much of the work of the 1974 convention and proposed it as a set of eight amendments to the existing constitution. All eight of the amendments were rejected by the voters. There have been several subsequent proposals to revise the constitution, but none of those efforts has been successful. However, several sections (and one entire article) were successfully repealed in 1969. Today, I went to vote early and I stood at the voting podium and thought, "¡No Más!" I voted a straight-No ticket. I will never vote "Yes" so long as this Lone Star nonsense prevails. If this is (fair & balanced) anarchy, so be it.

[x Austin Fishwrap]
A closer look at 16 proposed constitutional amendments
Early voting starts for Nov. 6 election


Summary of the 16 proposed constitutional amendments

Proposition 1 — Angelo State: Clarifies that Angelo State has been moved from the Texas State University System to the Texas Tech University System.

Supporters say: It's largely a housekeeping matter in completing Angelo State's affiliation with the Texas Tech System.

Opponents say: The shift to the Tech System was hasty and ill-considered.

Proposition 2 — Student loan bonds: Authorizes the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to issue $500 million in bonds to finance low-interest loans to college students.

Supporters say: This long-standing program doesn't cost taxpayers anything because the students' loan payments are used to pay back bond debt and cover administrative expenses.

Opponents say: The program puts private lenders at a disadvantage because, unlike government agencies, they need to make a profit.

Proposition 3 — Appraisal caps: Caps the increase in the taxable value of a homestead at 10 percent above the last appraisal, instead of 10 percent per year.

Proponents say: Since properties are not appraised every year, the 10 percent cap allows homeowners to get hit with 20 percent or 30 percent increases sometimes. Tying the cap to the last appraisal would better fit the intent of the existing cap.

Opponents say: Large districts, which usually see the sharpest increases, typically already appraise every year, so the current cap is working.

Proposition 4 — Bonds for facilities construction, maintenance: Allows the state to sell up to $1 billion in general-obligation bonds for state agency construction and repair projects, including three prisons, repairs at state parks and county courthouses, upgrades at state schools for Texans with mental retardation and improvements at Youth Commission facilities.

Supporters say: The state needs the bonds to provide long-term financing for important state projects, and Texas has previously used bonds for this purpose.

Opponents say: This would give state officials a blank check, and they'd spend some of that money on projects that should be paid for from the state's normal operating budget.

Proposition 5 — Limited tax freeze: Allows small cities to put a temporary tax freeze on properties that receive state redevelopment funding.

Proponents say: The freeze would encourage participation in redevelopment efforts.

Opponents say: A freeze on some properties could shift the tax burden to others, and the freeze may help property owners who were going to renovate even if the tax benefit was not in place.

Proposition 6 — Tax exemption: Would exempt from business property taxes a personal vehicle that is also used for some business purposes. The exemption would be limited to one vehicle per person.

Proponents say: The business property tax was not intended to tax property that business owners use away from business.

Opponents say: The Legislature typically taxes property used to make money, which these vehicles are used for.

Proposition 7 — Eminent domain: Allows Texas governments to re-sell to the original owner land taken through eminent domain — assuming the government no longer needs the land — for the price paid during condemnation, rather than current market value.

Supporters say: Owners who had their land forcibly taken and lost the use of it for years should be able to pay the same price the government paid, allowing them, not the government, to capture the value of property appreciation. This is currently prohibited because the constitution doesn't allow the government to make a "transfer of value" to an individual.

Opponents say: Under eminent domain, owners were fairly compensated, and this sale should be treated the same as a purely private sale. These buyers would reap property value increases without having had to pay property taxes or maintain the property during the intervening years when the land was in government hands.

Proposition 8 — Home equity loans: Allows homeowners in an area declared a state of emergency to take out more than one home-equity loan in a year (prompted in part by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita); requires lenders to provide copies of loan application and other documents; specifies that homesteads must be designated for agriculture exemption on the day the loan closes.

Supporters say: The proposition fixes several problems for consumers and lenders. Hurricane victims who have one home-equity loan are now unable to take out a second to make repairs. Providing copies of loan documents guards against misrepresentations or misunderstandings. Some lenders have stopped making loans in rural areas because homeowners later designated their homesteads for agricultural use as a way to avoid foreclosure (home-equity loans can't be made for properties used for agriculture).

Opponents say: The proposition doesn't go far enough. They complain that it does not address the bigger issue, pending in the courts, over what loan fees are capped at 3 percent of the loan or are considered outside the cap. It also doesn't ban oral applications for the loans. Finally, it doesn't allow a homeowner to use home-equity credit to repay another debt not secured by the homestead.

Proposition 9 — Disabled veterans homestead tax exemption: Would allow veterans considered totally disabled to have some or all of their homestead exempted from property taxes.

Proponents say: The current system has prevented some veterans from receiving the tax exemption they're entitled to.

Opponents say: Further exemptions would cost local governments money.

Proposition 10 — Abolish hides and animal inspector's office: Remove the office of inspector of hides and animals from the Constitution.

Supporters say: Passage would bring the constitution in line with 2003 legislation that abolished an office that most counties in Texas had not filled for decades.

Opponents say: There remain statutory references to the office of hides and animals that will need to be cleaned up regardless of the outcome of the vote.

Proposition 11 — Record votes: Require members of the House and Senate to cast record votes after the final reading of all substantive bills and resolutions and make those votes available to the public on the Internet.

Supporters say: Recording votes that change laws or the constitution is important enough to be protected by the constitution, which requires a statewide vote to prompt change. Although House and Senate rules currently require some record votes, lawmakers could change that at any time. Requiring record votes on first reading and second reading as well as final reading would slow the lawmaking significantly. The final reading is the most important vote.

Opponents say: A constitutional change is unnecessary because House and Senate rules have for the past two sessions required record votes. The proposition could increase partisanship and weaken lawmakers' ability to work with the other party to craft legislation. Recording votes at the second stage would be better, because that is when most substantive debate takes place.

Proposition 12 — Transportation bonds: Allows the Texas Transportation Commission to issue up to $5 billion in general obligation bonds, debt that would be paid back from general state revenue rather than gas taxes or transportation-related fees.

Supporters say: The state needs money for roads, and gas taxes are inadequate to allow more current spending or more borrowing against the gas tax. Borrowing would speed up construction and be fair, given that about $800 million a year of transportation revenue is used for other state purposes. The Texas Constitution allows state-supported debt up to 5 percent of uncommitted general revenue, and the state is at 2 percent.

Opponents say: The state would have to pay interest on these bonds and not have that money available for other state needs. Some say the transportation commission has been less than forthright with lawmakers and can't be trusted to spend this money. And the money probably would be used on toll roads, based on enabling legislation in the spring that failed to become law.

Proposition 13 – Denying bail in domestic violence cases: Authorizes judges to deny bail to a person who has violated a protective order or has violated conditions of pretrial release in family violence cases.

Supporters say: The law would give judges a valuable tool they currently lack to protect particularly vulnerable domestic violence victims.

Opponents say: Bail is a constitutional right for the accused, and the proposition may not hold up to legal scrutiny.

Proposition 14 — Retirement of judges: Allows judges to finish serving out their terms if they turn 75 while in office. Currently, the constitution requires judges to retire at age 75.

Supporters say: The change would honor voters' intentions. Forcing judges to retire mid-term is disruptive. Incompetent judges can be removed through other means.

Opponents say: Mandatory retirement is necessary to guarantee a vibrant, effective judiciary. Allowing judges to stay past their 75th birthdays delays the entrance of judges into the system. The change doesn't go far enough; mandatory retirement is an antiquated concept, and other protections are in place to ensure quality judges.

Proposition 15 — Cancer research bonds: Establishes the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizes up to $3 billion in taxpayer-backed general obligation bonds to research all forms of human cancer.

Supporters say: This is a chance to find cures for the diseases that kill 35,000 Texans a year. The initiative would draw top researchers to the state, stimulate the biotech industry here and create jobs.

Opponents say: The proposal is too much of a burden on taxpayers; interest payments for $3 billion in bonds could be as high as $1.6 billion. There are other diseases that deserve research money, and, aside from medical research, there are other urgent needs in the state.

Proposition 16 — Colonia bonds: Allows the Texas Water Development Board to issue $250 million in taxpayer-supported bonds to pay for water and wastewater services in economically distressed areas, particularly in counties along the Texas-Mexico border, where substandard subdivisions known as colonias have proliferated.

Supporters say: The program has funneled more than $500 million in state and federal money for water improvement projects but now has less than $12 million left, even though needs are still great. The program is a wise use of state funds because access to clean water and adequate sanitation is crucial for public health.

Opponents say: The program should not be expanded because, after spending more than $500 million, the problem persists. Continuing to extend water and sewer lines to unincorporated areas could make the problem worse because it encourages people to move to hard-to-serve areas. Grants and tax credits, as well as development controls, are a better solution than bond debt.

Copyright © 2007 The Austin Statesman-American

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.