Voters must consider eight amendments to the Texas Constitution November 2nd
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:22 pm
https://texasscorecard.com/commentary/s ... im-voting/
Sullivan: How I’m Voting
Voters must consider eight amendments to the Texas Constitution. Some of them should make you mad.
By Michael Quinn Sullivan | October 20, 2021
Since being adopted in 1876, the Texas Constitution has been amended 507 times. If it seems
Texans do more “amending” than most states, it is because our state’s Constitution requires
voter approval for changing aspects of state law that elsewhere is left up to the politicians.
Locally, many of us are also being asked to allow the issuance of multimillion-dollar bonds to
do all sorts of fun and exciting things. Left unmentioned is that those “bonds” represent debt
you and your neighbors will have to pay off.
Bonds are like the credit card debt of the government. It’s not the $50 charged to the card that
creates problems, but the interest that rapidly accrues when that money isn’t immediately
paid off. But bonds are worse, because they are designed not to be paid back quickly; they are
designed to collect interest. That means taxpayers are on the hook for whatever amount is
listed—plus another 50 percent or so.
So, I almost always vote “no” on local bonds unless the need is explicit and the spending plan
is extremely detailed. I vote “no” a lot.
This is why I am adamantly opposed to the statewide Proposition 2. As my friend
, Prop. 2 “virtually guarantees your property taxes won’t go down.” The
proposition itself explains how the bonds are for counties to fund “infrastructure and
transportation projects in underdeveloped, unproductive, or blighted areas.” That’s a lot of
spending, a lot of debt, and not a lot of clarity. I’ll vote “no.”
Here is how I’ll be approaching the others:
Proposition 1 is an expansion of the state picking winners and losers in the soft “charitable
gambling” space. This is not the free market at work. This is not some “libertarian” happy
space for individual choice. This is the PR side of corporate welfare recipients getting to
pretend they are “giving back” to the community. I’ll be voting “no.”
Proposition 3 is a reminder of how ineffectual—even cowardly—our courts and Legislature
have become. In 2019, Gov. Greg Abbott closed down churches, setting the stage for local
governments to follow suit. He backed down, but the local tyrants didn’t ease up—and
through it all, the courts ignored the existing constitutional protections for worship. So we get
another constitutional amendment reaffirming the existing amendment that Greg Abbott and
the courts already ignored. I am voting—angrily—”yes.”
Proposition 4 limits voters’ ability to pick the candidate of their choice for judicial races. I’m
not sure how citizens are served by requiring lawyers to spend an additional amount of
professional time chasing ambulances and over-billing clients before being eligible to be
elected as a judge. I’ll vote “no.”
Proposition 5 is being sold as “fairness”—putting judicial candidates under the thumb of the
unelected bureaucracy that regulates incumbent judges. The difference? The unelected
bureaucracy serves at the leisure of the elected judges. Gee, I wonder how that will turn out. It
is an incumbency protection racket. I’ll vote “no.”
I look at Proposition 6 the same way I do Prop. 3; I’ll be angry when voting for it. Greg Abbott
decided to block nursing home residents from their families, leaving many to suffer and die
alone. Our courts looked on and did nothing. The amendment is the least the Legislature
could do, and it is weak, but maybe the next governor won’t ignore it.
By design, Propositions 7 and 8 are hard to be against. They tug at the emotional
heartstrings by extending homestead tax limits and exemptions to the surviving spouses of
people who qualified for the original exemption. Lawmakers exempt sympathetic people from
the confiscatory property tax system precisely so they can avoid doing anything substantive
for everyone. Legislators know the widow of a disabled veteran would be a powerful victim in
the fight for real property tax reform if her home was taken due to the property tax burden, so
they do these things to keep her and others like her off the rhetorical field of battle.
Terri Hall wrote recently with regard to statewide propositions:
Whether you vote for or against 7 and 8, both are a reminder that the governor, lieutenant
governor, and legislators haven’t done anything to substantively relieve our property tax
burden or work toward eliminating the property tax system.
So, there you have it. Now I’ll head to the polls.
Michael Quinn Sullivan
A graduate of Texas A&M, former newspaper reporter, one-time Capitol Hill staffer, think tank
vice president, and an Eagle Scout, Michael Quinn Sullivan and his wife have three children. He
is the publisher of Texas Scorecard. Check out his podcast, “Reflections on Life and Liberty.”
Sullivan: How I’m Voting
Voters must consider eight amendments to the Texas Constitution. Some of them should make you mad.
By Michael Quinn Sullivan | October 20, 2021
Since being adopted in 1876, the Texas Constitution has been amended 507 times. If it seems
Texans do more “amending” than most states, it is because our state’s Constitution requires
voter approval for changing aspects of state law that elsewhere is left up to the politicians.
Locally, many of us are also being asked to allow the issuance of multimillion-dollar bonds to
do all sorts of fun and exciting things. Left unmentioned is that those “bonds” represent debt
you and your neighbors will have to pay off.
Bonds are like the credit card debt of the government. It’s not the $50 charged to the card that
creates problems, but the interest that rapidly accrues when that money isn’t immediately
paid off. But bonds are worse, because they are designed not to be paid back quickly; they are
designed to collect interest. That means taxpayers are on the hook for whatever amount is
listed—plus another 50 percent or so.
So, I almost always vote “no” on local bonds unless the need is explicit and the spending plan
is extremely detailed. I vote “no” a lot.
This is why I am adamantly opposed to the statewide Proposition 2. As my friend
, Prop. 2 “virtually guarantees your property taxes won’t go down.” The
proposition itself explains how the bonds are for counties to fund “infrastructure and
transportation projects in underdeveloped, unproductive, or blighted areas.” That’s a lot of
spending, a lot of debt, and not a lot of clarity. I’ll vote “no.”
Here is how I’ll be approaching the others:
Proposition 1 is an expansion of the state picking winners and losers in the soft “charitable
gambling” space. This is not the free market at work. This is not some “libertarian” happy
space for individual choice. This is the PR side of corporate welfare recipients getting to
pretend they are “giving back” to the community. I’ll be voting “no.”
Proposition 3 is a reminder of how ineffectual—even cowardly—our courts and Legislature
have become. In 2019, Gov. Greg Abbott closed down churches, setting the stage for local
governments to follow suit. He backed down, but the local tyrants didn’t ease up—and
through it all, the courts ignored the existing constitutional protections for worship. So we get
another constitutional amendment reaffirming the existing amendment that Greg Abbott and
the courts already ignored. I am voting—angrily—”yes.”
Proposition 4 limits voters’ ability to pick the candidate of their choice for judicial races. I’m
not sure how citizens are served by requiring lawyers to spend an additional amount of
professional time chasing ambulances and over-billing clients before being eligible to be
elected as a judge. I’ll vote “no.”
Proposition 5 is being sold as “fairness”—putting judicial candidates under the thumb of the
unelected bureaucracy that regulates incumbent judges. The difference? The unelected
bureaucracy serves at the leisure of the elected judges. Gee, I wonder how that will turn out. It
is an incumbency protection racket. I’ll vote “no.”
I look at Proposition 6 the same way I do Prop. 3; I’ll be angry when voting for it. Greg Abbott
decided to block nursing home residents from their families, leaving many to suffer and die
alone. Our courts looked on and did nothing. The amendment is the least the Legislature
could do, and it is weak, but maybe the next governor won’t ignore it.
By design, Propositions 7 and 8 are hard to be against. They tug at the emotional
heartstrings by extending homestead tax limits and exemptions to the surviving spouses of
people who qualified for the original exemption. Lawmakers exempt sympathetic people from
the confiscatory property tax system precisely so they can avoid doing anything substantive
for everyone. Legislators know the widow of a disabled veteran would be a powerful victim in
the fight for real property tax reform if her home was taken due to the property tax burden, so
they do these things to keep her and others like her off the rhetorical field of battle.
Terri Hall wrote recently with regard to statewide propositions:
Whether you vote for or against 7 and 8, both are a reminder that the governor, lieutenant
governor, and legislators haven’t done anything to substantively relieve our property tax
burden or work toward eliminating the property tax system.
So, there you have it. Now I’ll head to the polls.
Michael Quinn Sullivan
A graduate of Texas A&M, former newspaper reporter, one-time Capitol Hill staffer, think tank
vice president, and an Eagle Scout, Michael Quinn Sullivan and his wife have three children. He
is the publisher of Texas Scorecard. Check out his podcast, “Reflections on Life and Liberty.”