8 Constitutional Amendments on the ballot

[Beau Vine 54,003]

 

[Blotto 23,434]

I'll admit to being as ignorant of the Texas constitution  as anybody, but is it necessary to codify regulations as specific as the one authorizing charitable raffles at rodeo venues in the constitution, lulz? How bloated is that thing?

[CooterBrown 17,913]

Voted against all of them. Fuck anything the state of Texas puts forward. Nothing they do is in good faith.

 

[Macanudo 12,928]

14 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I'll admit to being as ignorant of the Texas constitution  as anybody, but is it necessary to codify regulations as specific as the one authorizing charitable raffles at rodeo venues in the constitution, lulz? How bloated is that thing?

Look at the width of Ted Cruz's face and then quintuple it.

[High Plains Drifter 10,977]

 

I'm voting against them all. I guess 1 is harmless, but fuck em.

 

Change my mind.

 

[High Plains Drifter 10,977]

 

tomorrow is voting day, correct?

[elfenix 34,171]

love how they  hide this shit in double off year elections

[MissingInAction 24,824]

9 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

tomorrow is voting day, correct?

Also bird day. Coincidence? I think not.

[woohorn 1,131]

I'll admit to being as ignorant of the Texas constitution  as anybody, but is it necessary to codify regulations as specific as the one authorizing charitable raffles at rodeo venues in the constitution, lulz? How bloated is that thing?

Yet the Texas Department of State Health Services thinks it can ban Delta 8 by publishing a notice on its website...

[Fudge Nuggets 19,151]

Voted to let the rednecks have their raffles because why not, but voted no on everything else because why not?

[bolverk 29,401]

I always find these plain language voter guides helpful. Click the drop downs for explanation, pro, and con.

https://www.lwvtexas.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=979482&module_id=490719

[immamac 42,519]

I early voted and voted no on everything. 

[Pato del Muerto 52,342]

Have to be able to have church service no matter what.  Jesus only gives a shit about you if you travel to kneel and pray. 
 

or maybe it’s because people don’t give as freely when they aren’t surrounded by others and the pastors that tell their congregations how to vote can’t be having that. 

[Brisketexan 104,628]

Actually, please vote FOR 4 and 5.  They increase the requirements for our candidates for judicial office, including closing an embarrassing loophole that meant that certain conduct would be disqualifying if a candidate was ALREADY a judge, but if the person was running for the first time, the conduct wasn't disqualifying at all.

And yes, we have a detailed, bloated constitution which is written in such a shitty way that we have to amend it a billion times to do the simplest things, but there we are....Texas, our Texas, all hail the mighty state!

Seriously, vote FOR on 4 and 5.  IDGAF what you do on the rest (except definitely vote AGAINST 3).

[Js1 85,110]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, please vote FOR 4 and 5.  They increase the requirements for our candidates for judicial office, including closing an embarrassing loophole that meant that certain conduct would be disqualifying if a candidate was ALREADY a judge, but if the person was running for the first time, the conduct wasn't disqualifying at all.

And yes, we have a detailed, bloated constitution which is written in such a shitty way that we have to amend it a billion times to do the simplest things, but there we are....Texas, our Texas, all hail the mighty state!

Seriously, vote FOR on 4 and 5.  IDGAF what you do on the rest (except definitely vote AGAINST 3).

Uh isn't it empowering the State Commission to decide what is and is not disqualifying?

Stop trusting the State of Texas to do anything.  Wait until "protesting SB-8" is disqualifying for a black female judicial candidate, but storming the Capitol is just fine and dandy for Whitey McWhiterson.  Seems like a way for the State to dictate what the Texas judicial system looks like. 

[Brisketexan 104,628]

Just now, Js1 said:

Uh isn't it empowering the State Commission to decide what is and is not disqualifying?

Stop trusting the State of Texas to do anything.  Wait until "protesting SB-8" is disqualifying for a black female judicial candidate, but storming the Capitol is just fine and dandy for Whitey McWhiterson.  Seems like a way for the State to dictate what the Texas judicial system looks like. 

Well, I mean, we actually have a written code of judicial conduct and have had it for a long time, it just doesn't apply to people who aren't judges yet.  Like I said, a loophole that's closed to make it apply to candidates for judicial office.

Your argument is not entirely misplaced, of course -- but the state ALREADY has authority in this respect.  This just makes it consistent.  And might have kept a certain really troubling candidate from ever taking office, had it been in place before.  If the state is going to go completely rogue, then that's what it's going to do, and we can't stop it by voting in any particular direction on this amendment.  That's more up to us at the general election ballot box.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,659]

Fuck rodeos and fuck religion 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,414]

I vote no to amendments on principal. I don't even bother to read them as they are frequently worded to mislead people. With this being said, I'm under no illusions that every amendment passes often by large margins.

[pantone159 712]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously, vote FOR on 4 and 5.

The wording on the ballot for those is horrible. From reading the ballot, who knows WTF the amendment means? I made some choice in the voting booth, but I have no idea how I voted on 4 or 5 because those words just have no actual content.

[tantric superman 4,667]

2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'm voting against them all. I guess 1 is harmless, but fuck em.

 

Change my mind.

 

I prefer picnics and world fairs to rodeos, so no on 1 as well.

[tantric superman 4,667]

I voted just to vote no on 3. The rest I hope I did okay on.

Although the whole double negative thing had me reading it over about 10 times.

[DaysOff 7,853]

If the wording seems intentionally confusing just remember it was written by some piece of shit racist republican, so vote no.

[High Plains Drifter 10,977]

I agree with tantric.

The double negative wording is (perhaps intentionally) confusing. If I have to read it ten times and diagram the sentence to figure out what it is actually saying (and I'm a damn genius), then what is the average moron going to do?

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by High Plains Drifter

[elfenix 34,171]

i assume the satanic church will be voting yes on 3 and shortly thereafter suing the state to allow marijuana during its religious services. 

[High Plains Drifter 10,977]

1 hour ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Fuck rodeos and fuck religion 

 

You need to go to an actual ranch rodeo, where teams of cowboys from actual working ranches compete in team events. Much different and much cooler than the bullshit you see on ESPN Ocho.

 

2 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

Also bird day. Coincidence? I think not.

 

So I can cast my ballot by carrier pigeon?

 

[BrickHorn 18,194]

1 hour ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Fuck rodeos and fuck religion 

Wait. Is fuck a verb or an adjective here?

Edited November 1, 2021 by BrickHorn

[Guest]

Wait a second, why are they written in American and Mexican?! We fought a war for this! Dammit Abbott! I'm voting for Huffines!

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

12 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Wait. Is fuck a verb or an adjective here?

Yes

[Blotto 23,434]

2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

I agree with tantric.

The double negative wording is (perhaps intentionally) confusing. If I have to read it ten times and diagram the sentence to figure out what it is actually saying (and I'm a damn genius), then what is the average moron going to do?

 

[Guest]

#4 doesn't tell you what you're voting FOR.    How convenient.

 

Agree with High Plains Drifter and Immamac.   No across the board.

[Biff Tannen 45,497]

3 hours ago, pantone159 said:

The wording on the ballot for those is horrible. From reading the ballot, who knows WTF the amendment means? I made some choice in the voting booth, but I have no idea how I voted on 4 or 5 because those words just have no actual content.

Pretty much this.  Definitely voted against the religion one.

[tx 3 putt 76,395]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, please vote FOR 4 and 5.  They increase the requirements for our candidates for judicial office, including closing an embarrassing loophole that meant that certain conduct would be disqualifying if a candidate was ALREADY a judge, but if the person was running for the first time, the conduct wasn't disqualifying at all.

And yes, we have a detailed, bloated constitution which is written in such a shitty way that we have to amend it a billion times to do the simplest things, but there we are....Texas, our Texas, all hail the mighty state!

Seriously, vote FOR on 4 and 5.  IDGAF what you do on the rest (except definitely vote AGAINST 3).

 

i voted yes 4, 5 and 7

Edited November 1, 2021 by tx 3 putt

[F250 28,691]

3 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Fuck rodeos and fuck religion 

Cowboy Church is sad.

 

[Guest]

I like this thread because (most) of the reactions are across a pretty good spectrum of parties/ POV's.

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

3 hours ago, elfenix said:

i assume the satanic church will be voting yes on 3 and shortly thereafter suing the state to allow marijuana during its religious services. 

That's what I thought about too. Satanic church was ready to put up a statue beside the Ten Commandments in Oklahoma?

 

[WBT 20,422]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I vote no to amendments on principal. I don't even bother to read them as they are frequently worded to mislead people. With this being said, I'm under no illusions that every amendment passes often by large margins.

Yep.  I'll be voting no across the board but they'll all pass.  I can't remember the time frame but last time I went back and looked amendments had a 90+% pass rate.  People love mashing the yes button.

[HRSchenker 2,259]

I'm voting no on everything except 6. 

[landman 559]

16 hours ago, DaysOff said:

If the wording seems intentionally confusing just remember it was written by some piece of shit racist republican, so vote no.

The Austin City Council begs to differ.

[HenryJames 65,890]

I just wrote in Gary Johnson on each question.

[bolverk 29,401]

33 minutes ago, landman said:

The Austin City Council begs to differ.

I think you're confusing the state lege with the city council. Language for the local ballot measures is pretty damn clear.

Putting that aside, don't you live in Oklahoma?

[gmr548 16,516]

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, I mean, we actually have a written code of judicial conduct and have had it for a long time, it just doesn't apply to people who aren't judges yet.  Like I said, a loophole that's closed to make it apply to candidates for judicial office.

Your argument is not entirely misplaced, of course -- but the state ALREADY has authority in this respect.  This just makes it consistent.  And might have kept a certain really troubling candidate from ever taking office, had it been in place before.  If the state is going to go completely rogue, then that's what it's going to do, and we can't stop it by voting in any particular direction on this amendment.  That's more up to us at the general election ballot box.

I respect your opinion as a professional in the field and a generally thoughtful poster, and the same goes for @TwiceHorn giving it +rep. I am legitimately considering changing my mind on this because of the two of you.

My main issue with these are that they very much read like a gatekeeping mechanism for the GOP to maintain and tighten control on the state judiciary. I see they passed both houses of the lege with huge margins, so I guess there's that, but it is hard to trust the Texas GOP on anything. What are your thoughts on that?

Edited November 2, 2021 by gmr548

[landman 559]

23 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I think you're confusing the state lege with the city council. Language for the local ballot measures is pretty damn clear.

Putting that aside, don't you live in Oklahoma?

Austin my entire life - 52 years and counting.  And the last few Austin ballots have had city designated language challenged and changed.  Most recently the light rail language last year.

[bolverk 29,401]

Just now, landman said:

Austin my entire life - 52 years and counting.  And the last few Austin ballots have had city designated language challenged and changed.  Most recently the light rail language last year.

Are you confused by the language of the current local ballot measures? Because that's what is at issue here.

You're the first to mention the city language, versus multiple references in this thread to the that put forth by the state legislature.

[landman 559]

41 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Are you confused by the language of the current local ballot measures? Because that's what is at issue here.

You're the first to mention the city language, versus multiple references in this thread to the that put forth by the state legislature.

I wasn't defending the state language.  It's bad and always has been.  Just pointing out that Austin has been known for confusing language as well over the years in response to a comment made by another poster.

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2,630]

Curious. What’s the argument against allowing counties to have bonds on infrastructure? It seems like a no brainer on the surface, but I’m guessing there is something deeper that I am missing. 

[bolverk 29,401]

5 minutes ago, ONE YARD said:

Curious. What’s the argument against allowing counties to have bonds on infrastructure? It seems like a no brainer on the surface, but I’m guessing there is something deeper that I am missing. 

I suppose the argument could be made that providing infrastructure in unincorporated areas could further lead to sprawl, but I personally feel we're so woefully behind on infrastructure in this state that it's merited. The growth is coming, regardless, and we should probably manage it the best we can.

 

Here is the explanation and the pro/con arguments set forth in the LoW Voters guide posted above:

Explanation:

The Texas Constitution allows the legislature to authorize cities to issue bonds or notes to finance development or redevelopment of transportation or infrastructure in “unproductive, underdeveloped or blighted areas”. 

Proposition 2 would amend the Texas Constitution to add counties to the political entities that can issue bonds or notes for that purpose, and to pledge increases in property tax revenues to repay the bonds or notes.    

If the county issues bonds for transportation improvements, the county may not: 

• Allocate more than 65% of the property tax increases annually to repay the 
• Use the bond proceeds to finance toll road construction, operation, maintenance or right-of-way acquisition.

Arguments For:

• Cities and towns can already finance infrastructure and transportation projects using bonds and notes. Counties also need the ability to address infrastructure issues.
• The development or redevelopment of infrastructure or transportation is expected to increase property values. Higher property values would result in higher tax revenues to repay these bonds. 
• Texas is growing, and infrastructure and transportation development is needed for our future economic prosperity.  The proposition would allow counties to use bonds to finance much needed infrastructure projects. 

Arguments Against:

• This proposition could expand debt, which may raise local property taxes. 
• Opponents say that Texas’s local debt ratio per person is too high, and issuing these bonds ties up future funds for debt service payments. 
• These transportation and infrastructure projects could divert revenues that may go to other government services or projects.

 

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

13 minutes ago, ONE YARD said:

Curious. What’s the argument against allowing counties to have bonds on infrastructure? It seems like a no brainer on the surface, but I’m guessing there is something deeper that I am missing. 

I don't want counties to be able to double dip if the state isn't doing what it should be doing, and I'm particularly leery of making this shit a constitutional amendment. Or almost any shit. 

[Brisketexan 104,628]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

I respect your opinion as a professional in the field and a generally thoughtful poster, and the same goes for @TwiceHorn giving it +rep. I am legitimately considering changing my mind on this because of the two of you.

My main issue with these are that they very much read like a gatekeeping mechanism for the GOP to maintain and tighten control on the state judiciary. I see they passed both houses of the lege with huge margins, so I guess there's that, but it is hard to trust the Texas GOP on anything. What are your thoughts on that?

In short, it's impossible for the GOP lege to do the wrong thing EVERY time.  Some things are so common-sense and non-controversial that they just skate through no matter who is in charge.  These provisions fit that bill.  Whether you're in a county where the GOP will win elections, or one where the Dems will win, you want the people running for judicial office to have some basic qualifications and not be batshit crazy/criminal/etc.

[WBT 20,422]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In short, it's impossible for the GOP lege to do the wrong thing EVERY time.  Some things are so common-sense and non-controversial that they just skate through no matter who is in charge.  These provisions fit that bill.  Whether you're in a county where the GOP will win elections, or one where the Dems will win, you want the people running for judicial office to have some basic qualifications and not be batshit crazy/criminal/etc.

Maybe I trust the voters to decide which candidate is best qualified?  I mean I don't personally but our system seems to be based on that premise.

[Michael Knight 12,898]

Prop 3 is just bullshit virtue signaling and not necessary at all. 4 and 5 is just more fuckery to rig elections for the right judges, which of all the dumb things Texas does its probably the dumbest.

 

 

Proposition 4: AGAINST

When people in power are unhappy with the choices made by voters, they do stuff like this, which would make it substantially harder for younger, more diverse, and dare we say more progressive lawyers to become judges in Texas. The need for more stringent qualifications wasn't evident to the state's GOP elites (which include many wack jobs who were nonetheless elevated to judicial benches) until they started losing court elections en masse to Democratic slates in the urban counties. Now it's a crisis. You get the picture.

Proposition 5: AGAINST

This is another attempt to game judicial elections. In the abstract, it would be good if the state's legal institutions, such as the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, had a more useful and visible role to play in helping local voters decide these very low-information races. In practice, this is a recipe for chaos and mischief designed to give rival campaigns a chance to go negative without real consequence, much the same way that complaints to the Texas Ethics Commission are filed now. We can live without it.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Michael Knight