Clicking through from the Tribune's explanation, I found the text of the Amendment here:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SJ00075F.htm
After reading more about it, it seems like a no brainer Yes for me.
I guess what confused me was the renaming of a Fund that seemingly already exists for the stated purpose. So the only real difference would be that the renamed fund gets to siphon off funds from the rainy day fund? I clicked through and found the text of the amendment here:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HJ00003F.htm
I don't know enough about the economic stabilization fund to determine if this is wise or not. My instinct is that while a noble goal, funding a fund like this should be done directly/straightforward, not backdoored by siphoning from a different fund that has a different purpose.
It does seem like a convoluted Frankenstein mish-mash of different ideas.