PSA: Nov 2023 Texas Constitutional Amendments (14)

Nice Guy Eddie · October 23, 2023

47 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

This is the one I think I waffled the most on. I could be argued either way. I mean, hell, property taxes are a wealth tax. It's essentially the same thing just applied to different property.

I thought about property taxes with this amendment. I'm confident that Texas voters will overwhelmingly vote yes on the amendment to ban wealth taxes. I would assume that some crusader will take this amendment and file a lawsuit that residential property taxes should be level for every homeowner. Charging someone more due to property value is a wealth tax.

chainsaw · October 23, 2023

Number 1

Spoiler

Quote

      SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
   adding Section 36 to read as follows:
           Sec. 36. (a) The people have the right to engage in
   generally accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture,
   or wildlife management practices on real property they own or
   lease.
           (b) This section does not affect the authority of the
   legislature to authorize by general law the regulation of generally
   accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture, or wildlife
   management practices by:
                 (1) a state agency or political subdivision when there
   is clear and convincing evidence that the law or regulation is
   necessary to protect the public health and safety from imminent
   danger;
                 (2) a state agency to prevent a danger to animal health
   or crop production; or
                 (3) a state agency or political subdivision to
   preserve or conserve the natural resources of this state under
   Section 59, Article XVI, of this constitution.
           (c) This section does not affect the authority of the
   legislature to authorize by general law the use or acquisition of
   property for a public use, including the development of the natural
   resources of this state under Section 59, Article XVI, of this
   constitution.

My recommendation: NO. It is probably going to pre-empt well-reasoned city ordinances that stop animal abusers from stuffing livestock onto tiny urban plots of land that they are renting out from an absentee landlord. Might even invalidate lease terms and open the floodgates for yuppies to keep chicken coops in their highrise balconies. Not very well thought out or well written.

Number 2

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is amended by
   adding Section 1-r to read as follows:
           Sec. 1-r. The governing body of a county or municipality may
   exempt from ad valorem taxation all or part of the appraised value
   of real property used to operate a child-care facility. The
   governing body may adopt the exemption as a percentage of the
   appraised value of the real property. The percentage specified by
   the governing body may not be less than 50 percent. The legislature
   by general law may define "child-care facility" for purposes of
   this section and may provide additional eligibility requirements
   for the exemption authorized by this section.

My recommendation: YES. I don't see any downside, but it might not deliver everything intended because it allows the legislature to create "additional eligibility requirements" that will certainly be something like "donate to the Alliance Defending Freedom" or "sign this pledge that the 2020 election was stolen."

Number 3

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is amended by
   adding Section 25 to read as follows:
           Sec. 25. The legislature may not impose a tax based on the
   wealth or net worth of an individual or family, including a tax
   based on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an
   individual or family.

My recommendation: NO. This benefits nobody deserving of any benefit. Fuck the rich. Fuck Harlan Crow. I hope Merrick Garland personally raids his properties, liquidates all his assets, and gives the money to Planned Parenthood.

Number 4

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Section 1, Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is
   amended by adding Subsections (n) and (n-1) to read as follows:
           (n) This subsection does not apply to a residence homestead
   to which Subsection (i) of this section applies. Notwithstanding
   Subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Legislature by general
   law may limit the maximum appraised value of real property for ad
   valorem tax purposes in a tax year to the lesser of the most recent
   market value of the property as determined by the appraisal entity
   or 120 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of
   the property for the preceding tax year. The general law enacted
   under this subsection may prescribe additional eligibility
   requirements for the limitation on appraised values authorized by
   this subsection. A limitation on appraised values authorized by
   this subsection:
                 (1) takes effect as to a parcel of real property
   described by this subsection on the later of the effective date of
   the law imposing the limitation or January 1 of the tax year
   following the first tax year in which the owner owns the property on
   January 1; and
                 (2) expires on January 1 of the tax year following the
   tax year in which the owner of the property ceases to own the
   property.
           (n-1) This subsection and Subsection (n) of this section
   expire December 31, 2026.
           SECTION 2. Sections 1-b(c) and (d), Article VIII, Texas
   Constitution, are amended to read as follows:
           (c) The amount of $100,000 [~~$40,000~~] of the market value of
   the residence homestead of a married or unmarried adult, including
   one living alone, is exempt from ad valorem taxation for general
   elementary and secondary public school purposes. The legislature
   by general law may provide that all or part of the exemption does
   not apply to a district or political subdivision that imposes ad
   valorem taxes for public education purposes but is not the
   principal school district providing general elementary and
   secondary public education throughout its territory. In addition
   to this exemption, the legislature by general law may exempt an
   amount not to exceed $10,000 of the market value of the residence
   homestead of a person who is disabled as defined in Subsection (b)
   of this section and of a person 65 years of age or older from ad
   valorem taxation for general elementary and secondary public school
   purposes. The legislature by general law may base the amount of and
   condition eligibility for the additional exemption authorized by
   this subsection for disabled persons and for persons 65 years of age
   or older on economic need. An eligible disabled person who is 65
   years of age or older may not receive both exemptions from a school
   district but may choose either. An eligible person is entitled to
   receive both the exemption required by this subsection for all
   residence homesteads and any exemption adopted pursuant to
   Subsection (b) of this section, but the legislature shall provide
   by general law whether an eligible disabled or elderly person may
   receive both the additional exemption for the elderly and disabled
   authorized by this subsection and any exemption for the elderly or
   disabled adopted pursuant to Subsection (b) of this section. Where
   ad valorem tax has previously been pledged for the payment of debt,
   the taxing officers of a school district may continue to levy and
   collect the tax against the value of homesteads exempted under this
   subsection until the debt is discharged if the cessation of the levy
   would impair the obligation of the contract by which the debt was
   created. The legislature shall provide for formulas to protect
   school districts against all or part of the revenue loss incurred by
   the implementation of this subsection, Subsection (d) of this
   section, and Section 1-d-1 of this article. The legislature by
   general law may define residence homestead for purposes of this
   section.
           (d) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, if a
   person receives a residence homestead exemption prescribed by
   Subsection (c) of this section for homesteads of persons who are 65
   years of age or older or who are disabled, the total amount of ad
   valorem taxes imposed on that homestead for general elementary and
   secondary public school purposes may not be increased while it
   remains the residence homestead of that person or that person's
   spouse who receives the exemption. If a person who is 65 years of
   age or older or who is disabled dies in a year in which the person
   received the exemption, the total amount of ad valorem taxes
   imposed on the homestead for general elementary and secondary
   public school purposes may not be increased while it remains the
   residence homestead of that person's surviving spouse if the spouse
   is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person's death,
   subject to any exceptions provided by general law. The
   legislature, by general law, may provide for the transfer of all or
   a proportionate amount of a limitation provided by this subsection
   for a person who qualifies for the limitation and establishes a
   different residence homestead. However, taxes otherwise limited
   by this subsection may be increased to the extent the value of the
   homestead is increased by improvements other than repairs or
   improvements made to comply with governmental requirements and
   except as may be consistent with the transfer of a limitation under
   this subsection. For a residence homestead subject to the
   limitation provided by this subsection in the 1996 tax year or an
   earlier tax year, the legislature shall provide for a reduction in
   the amount of the limitation for the 1997 tax year and subsequent
   tax years in an amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by the 1997 tax
   rate for general elementary and secondary public school purposes
   applicable to the residence homestead. For a residence homestead
   subject to the limitation provided by this subsection in the 2014
   tax year or an earlier tax year, the legislature shall provide for a
   reduction in the amount of the limitation for the 2015 tax year and
   subsequent tax years in an amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by the
   2015 tax rate for general elementary and secondary public school
   purposes applicable to the residence homestead. For a residence
   homestead subject to the limitation provided by this subsection in
   the 2021 tax year or an earlier tax year, the legislature shall
   provide for a reduction in the amount of the limitation for the 2023
   tax year and subsequent tax years in an amount equal to $15,000
   multiplied by the 2022 tax rate for general elementary and
   secondary public school purposes applicable to the residence
   homestead. Beginning with the 2023 tax year, for any tax year in
   which the amount of the exemption provided by Subsection (c) of this
   section applicable to the residence homestead of a married or
   unmarried adult, including one living alone, or the amount of the
   exemption provided by Subsection (c) of this section applicable to
   the residence homestead of a person who is disabled as defined by
   Subsection (b) of this section and of a person 65 years of age or
   older is increased, the legislature shall provide for a reduction
   for that tax year and subsequent tax years in the amount of the
   limitation provided by this subsection applicable to a residence
   homestead that was subject to the limitation in the tax year
   preceding the tax year in which the amount of the exemption is
   increased in an amount equal to the amount by which the amount of
   the exemption is increased multiplied by the tax rate for general
   elementary and secondary public school purposes applicable to the
   residence homestead for the tax year in which the amount of the
   exemption is increased.
           SECTION 3. Section 22, Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is
   amended by adding Subsection (a-1) to read as follows:
           (a-1) Appropriations from state tax revenues not dedicated
   by this constitution that are made for the purpose of paying for ad
   valorem tax relief as identified by the legislature by general law
   are not included as appropriations for purposes of determining
   whether the rate of growth of appropriations exceeds the limitation
   prescribed by Subsection (a) of this section.
           SECTION 4. Section 30, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is
   amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
           (e) The Legislature by general law may provide that members
   of the governing body of an appraisal entity established in a county
   with a population of 75,000 or more serve terms not to exceed four
   years.
           SECTION 5. The following temporary provision is added to
   the Texas Constitution:
           TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) This temporary provision applies
   to the constitutional amendment proposed by H.J.R. 2, 88th
   Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 2023.
           (b) The amendments to Section 1-b, Article VIII, of this
   constitution take effect for the tax year beginning January 1,
   2023.
           (c) The amendment to Section 22, Article VIII, of this
   constitution applies to appropriations made for the state fiscal
   biennium beginning September 1, 2023, and subsequent state fiscal
   bienniums.
           (d) This temporary provision expires January 1, 2025.

My recommendation: YES. The homestead cap needs to be modernized. I haven't done the math to see what the revenue consequences will be short term or long term, but generally speaking we should be taxing the rich and not relying on homesteads for funding our schools.

Number 5

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Section 1, Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is
   amended by adding Subsections (n) and (n-1) to read as follows:
           (n) This subsection does not apply to a residence homestead
   to which Subsection (i) of this section applies. Notwithstanding
   Subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Legislature by general
   law may limit the maximum appraised value of real property for ad
   valorem tax purposes in a tax year to the lesser of the most recent
   market value of the property as determined by the appraisal entity
   or 120 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of
   the property for the preceding tax year. The general law enacted
   under this subsection may prescribe additional eligibility
   requirements for the limitation on appraised values authorized by
   this subsection. A limitation on appraised values authorized by
   this subsection:
                 (1) takes effect as to a parcel of real property
   described by this subsection on the later of the effective date of
   the law imposing the limitation or January 1 of the tax year
   following the first tax year in which the owner owns the property on
   January 1; and
                 (2) expires on January 1 of the tax year following the
   tax year in which the owner of the property ceases to own the
   property.
           (n-1) This subsection and Subsection (n) of this section
   expire December 31, 2026.
           SECTION 2. Sections 1-b(c) and (d), Article VIII, Texas
   Constitution, are amended to read as follows:
           (c) The amount of $100,000 [~~$40,000~~] of the market value of
   the residence homestead of a married or unmarried adult, including
   one living alone, is exempt from ad valorem taxation for general
   elementary and secondary public school purposes. The legislature
   by general law may provide that all or part of the exemption does
   not apply to a district or political subdivision that imposes ad
   valorem taxes for public education purposes but is not the
   principal school district providing general elementary and
   secondary public education throughout its territory. In addition
   to this exemption, the legislature by general law may exempt an
   amount not to exceed $10,000 of the market value of the residence
   homestead of a person who is disabled as defined in Subsection (b)
   of this section and of a person 65 years of age or older from ad
   valorem taxation for general elementary and secondary public school
   purposes. The legislature by general law may base the amount of and
   condition eligibility for the additional exemption authorized by
   this subsection for disabled persons and for persons 65 years of age
   or older on economic need. An eligible disabled person who is 65
   years of age or older may not receive both exemptions from a school
   district but may choose either. An eligible person is entitled to
   receive both the exemption required by this subsection for all
   residence homesteads and any exemption adopted pursuant to
   Subsection (b) of this section, but the legislature shall provide
   by general law whether an eligible disabled or elderly person may
   receive both the additional exemption for the elderly and disabled
   authorized by this subsection and any exemption for the elderly or
   disabled adopted pursuant to Subsection (b) of this section. Where
   ad valorem tax has previously been pledged for the payment of debt,
   the taxing officers of a school district may continue to levy and
   collect the tax against the value of homesteads exempted under this
   subsection until the debt is discharged if the cessation of the levy
   would impair the obligation of the contract by which the debt was
   created. The legislature shall provide for formulas to protect
   school districts against all or part of the revenue loss incurred by
   the implementation of this subsection, Subsection (d) of this
   section, and Section 1-d-1 of this article. The legislature by
   general law may define residence homestead for purposes of this
   section.
           (d) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, if a
   person receives a residence homestead exemption prescribed by
   Subsection (c) of this section for homesteads of persons who are 65
   years of age or older or who are disabled, the total amount of ad
   valorem taxes imposed on that homestead for general elementary and
   secondary public school purposes may not be increased while it
   remains the residence homestead of that person or that person's
   spouse who receives the exemption. If a person who is 65 years of
   age or older or who is disabled dies in a year in which the person
   received the exemption, the total amount of ad valorem taxes
   imposed on the homestead for general elementary and secondary
   public school purposes may not be increased while it remains the
   residence homestead of that person's surviving spouse if the spouse
   is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person's death,
   subject to any exceptions provided by general law. The
   legislature, by general law, may provide for the transfer of all or
   a proportionate amount of a limitation provided by this subsection
   for a person who qualifies for the limitation and establishes a
   different residence homestead. However, taxes otherwise limited
   by this subsection may be increased to the extent the value of the
   homestead is increased by improvements other than repairs or
   improvements made to comply with governmental requirements and
   except as may be consistent with the transfer of a limitation under
   this subsection. For a residence homestead subject to the
   limitation provided by this subsection in the 1996 tax year or an
   earlier tax year, the legislature shall provide for a reduction in
   the amount of the limitation for the 1997 tax year and subsequent
   tax years in an amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by the 1997 tax
   rate for general elementary and secondary public school purposes
   applicable to the residence homestead. For a residence homestead
   subject to the limitation provided by this subsection in the 2014
   tax year or an earlier tax year, the legislature shall provide for a
   reduction in the amount of the limitation for the 2015 tax year and
   subsequent tax years in an amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by the
   2015 tax rate for general elementary and secondary public school
   purposes applicable to the residence homestead. For a residence
   homestead subject to the limitation provided by this subsection in
   the 2021 tax year or an earlier tax year, the legislature shall
   provide for a reduction in the amount of the limitation for the 2023
   tax year and subsequent tax years in an amount equal to $15,000
   multiplied by the 2022 tax rate for general elementary and
   secondary public school purposes applicable to the residence
   homestead. Beginning with the 2023 tax year, for any tax year in
   which the amount of the exemption provided by Subsection (c) of this
   section applicable to the residence homestead of a married or
   unmarried adult, including one living alone, or the amount of the
   exemption provided by Subsection (c) of this section applicable to
   the residence homestead of a person who is disabled as defined by
   Subsection (b) of this section and of a person 65 years of age or
   older is increased, the legislature shall provide for a reduction
   for that tax year and subsequent tax years in the amount of the
   limitation provided by this subsection applicable to a residence
   homestead that was subject to the limitation in the tax year
   preceding the tax year in which the amount of the exemption is
   increased in an amount equal to the amount by which the amount of
   the exemption is increased multiplied by the tax rate for general
   elementary and secondary public school purposes applicable to the
   residence homestead for the tax year in which the amount of the
   exemption is increased.
           SECTION 3. Section 22, Article VIII, Texas Constitution, is
   amended by adding Subsection (a-1) to read as follows:
           (a-1) Appropriations from state tax revenues not dedicated
   by this constitution that are made for the purpose of paying for ad
   valorem tax relief as identified by the legislature by general law
   are not included as appropriations for purposes of determining
   whether the rate of growth of appropriations exceeds the limitation
   prescribed by Subsection (a) of this section.
           SECTION 4. Section 30, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is
   amended by adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
           (e) The Legislature by general law may provide that members
   of the governing body of an appraisal entity established in a county
   with a population of 75,000 or more serve terms not to exceed four
   years.
           SECTION 5. The following temporary provision is added to
   the Texas Constitution:
           TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) This temporary provision applies
   to the constitutional amendment proposed by H.J.R. 2, 88th
   Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 2023.
           (b) The amendments to Section 1-b, Article VIII, of this
   constitution take effect for the tax year beginning January 1,
   2023.
           (c) The amendment to Section 22, Article VIII, of this
   constitution applies to appropriations made for the state fiscal
   biennium beginning September 1, 2023, and subsequent state fiscal
   bienniums.
           (d) This temporary provision expires January 1, 2025.

My recommendation: YES. I don't see the downside here. Interest, dividends and investment income from some passive investment, capped at $100M, to make the UTSAs and UTRGVs better is the first of many steps we should have already taken to get the UT system on par academically with the UC system.

Number 6

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Article III, Texas Constitution, is amended by
   adding Section 49-d-16 to read as follows:
           Sec. 49-d-16. (a) The Texas water fund is created as a
   special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue
   fund. The fund is administered by the Texas Water Development Board
   or by that board's successor in function as provided by general law.
   The legislature may appropriate money for the purpose of depositing
   the money to the fund to be available for transfer as provided by
   Subsection (b) of this section.
           (b) The administrator of the Texas water fund may use the
   fund only to transfer money to other funds or accounts administered
   by the Texas Water Development Board or that board's successor in
   function. Money transferred from the Texas water fund to a fund or
   account may be spent without further legislative appropriation in
   the manner provided by general law governing the use of money in the
   fund or account to which the money was transferred. The
   administrator may restore to the fund money transferred from the
   fund and deposited to the credit of another fund or account.
   Legislative appropriation is not required for the administrator to
   transfer money from or restore money to the fund, including the
   transfer of money from the fund to or the restoration of the money
   from:
                 (1) the Water Assistance Fund No. 480;
                 (2) the New Water Supply for Texas Fund;
                 (3) the Rural Water Assistance Fund No. 301; or
                 (4) the Statewide Water Public Awareness Account.
           (c) The Texas water fund consists of:
                 (1) money transferred or deposited to the credit of
   the fund by general law, including money appropriated by the
   legislature directly to the fund and money from any source
   transferred or deposited to the credit of the fund authorized by
   general law;
                 (2) any other revenue that the legislature by statute
   dedicates for deposit to the credit of the fund;
                 (3) investment earnings and interest earned on amounts
   credited to the fund;
                 (4) money from gifts, grants, or donations to the
   fund; and
                 (5) money returned from any authorized transfer.
           (d) The legislature by general law shall provide for the
   manner in which money from the Texas water fund may be used, subject
   to the limitations provided by this section.
           (e) Of the amount of money initially appropriated to the
   Texas water fund, the administrator of the fund shall allocate not
   less than 25 percent to be used only for transfer to the New Water
   Supply for Texas Fund.
           (f) The expenses of managing the investments of the Texas
   water fund shall be paid from that fund.
           (g) For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
   constitution:
                 (1) money in the Texas water fund is dedicated by this
   constitution; and
                 (2) an appropriation of state tax revenues for the
   purpose of depositing money to the credit of the Texas water fund is
   treated as if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by this
   constitution.
           (h) Any unexpended and unobligated balance remaining in the
   Texas water fund at the end of a state fiscal biennium is
   appropriated to the administrator of that fund for the following
   state fiscal biennium for the purposes authorized by this section.

My recommendation: YES. Don't see any downside here. Water is good. We need it. Having an untouchable fund is a step in the right direction.

Number 7

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Article III, Texas Constitution, is amended by
   adding Section 49-d-16 to read as follows:
           Sec. 49-d-16. (a) The Texas water fund is created as a
   special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue
   fund. The fund is administered by the Texas Water Development Board
   or by that board's successor in function as provided by general law.
   The legislature may appropriate money for the purpose of depositing
   the money to the fund to be available for transfer as provided by
   Subsection (b) of this section.
           (b) The administrator of the Texas water fund may use the
   fund only to transfer money to other funds or accounts administered
   by the Texas Water Development Board or that board's successor in
   function. Money transferred from the Texas water fund to a fund or
   account may be spent without further legislative appropriation in
   the manner provided by general law governing the use of money in the
   fund or account to which the money was transferred. The
   administrator may restore to the fund money transferred from the
   fund and deposited to the credit of another fund or account.
   Legislative appropriation is not required for the administrator to
   transfer money from or restore money to the fund, including the
   transfer of money from the fund to or the restoration of the money
   from:
                 (1) the Water Assistance Fund No. 480;
                 (2) the New Water Supply for Texas Fund;
                 (3) the Rural Water Assistance Fund No. 301; or
                 (4) the Statewide Water Public Awareness Account.
           (c) The Texas water fund consists of:
                 (1) money transferred or deposited to the credit of
   the fund by general law, including money appropriated by the
   legislature directly to the fund and money from any source
   transferred or deposited to the credit of the fund authorized by
   general law;
                 (2) any other revenue that the legislature by statute
   dedicates for deposit to the credit of the fund;
                 (3) investment earnings and interest earned on amounts
   credited to the fund;
                 (4) money from gifts, grants, or donations to the
   fund; and
                 (5) money returned from any authorized transfer.
           (d) The legislature by general law shall provide for the
   manner in which money from the Texas water fund may be used, subject
   to the limitations provided by this section.
           (e) Of the amount of money initially appropriated to the
   Texas water fund, the administrator of the fund shall allocate not
   less than 25 percent to be used only for transfer to the New Water
   Supply for Texas Fund.
           (f) The expenses of managing the investments of the Texas
   water fund shall be paid from that fund.
           (g) For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
   constitution:
                 (1) money in the Texas water fund is dedicated by this
   constitution; and
                 (2) an appropriation of state tax revenues for the
   purpose of depositing money to the credit of the Texas water fund is
   treated as if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by this
   constitution.
           (h) Any unexpended and unobligated balance remaining in the
   Texas water fund at the end of a state fiscal biennium is
   appropriated to the administrator of that fund for the following
   state fiscal biennium for the purposes authorized by this section.

My recommendation: NO. I don't want to "incentivize" a goddamn thing if it's not renewable energy. Eat a dick, Schwertner (Author).

Number 8

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Article III, Texas Constitution, is amended by
   adding Section 49-d-16 to read as follows:
           Sec. 49-d-16. (a) In this section:
                 (1) "Comptroller" means the comptroller of public
   accounts of the State of Texas or its successor.
                 (2) "Fund" means the broadband infrastructure fund.
           (b) The broadband infrastructure fund is created as a
   special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue
   fund.
           (c) The fund consists of:
                 (1) money transferred or deposited to the credit of
   the fund by this constitution, general law, or the General
   Appropriations Act;
                 (2) revenue that the legislature by general law
   dedicates for deposit to the credit of the fund;
                 (3) investment earnings and interest earned on money
   in the fund; and
                 (4) gifts, grants, and donations to the fund.
           (d) Money in the fund shall be administered by the
   comptroller. Money from the fund may be used, without further
   appropriation, only for the expansion of access to and adoption of
   broadband and telecommunications services, including:
                 (1) the development, construction, reconstruction,
   and expansion of broadband and telecommunications infrastructure
   or services;
                 (2) the operation of broadband and telecommunications
   infrastructure;
                 (3) the provision of broadband and telecommunications
   services; and
                 (4) the reasonable expenses of administering and
   managing the investments of the fund.
           (e) The legislature by general law shall provide for the
   manner in which the assets of the fund may be used, subject to the
   limitations of this section. Money in the fund may be used in
   conjunction with other funds or financial resources, including
   money from the federal government, in accordance with procedures,
   standards, and limitations established by federal law and general
   law of this state.
           (f) The comptroller may transfer money from the fund to
   another fund as provided by general law. The state agency that
   administers the fund to which the money is transferred as
   authorized by this subsection may use the money without further
   appropriation only for the expansion of access to and adoption of
   broadband and telecommunications services as provided by general
   law.
           (g) Unless extended by adoption of a concurrent resolution
   approved by a record vote of two-thirds of the members of each house
   of the legislature, this section expires on September 1, 2035. A
   resolution suspends the expiration of this section until September
   1 of the 10th year following the adoption of the resolution.
           (h) Immediately before the expiration of this section, the
   comptroller shall transfer any unexpended and unobligated balance
   remaining in the fund to the general revenue fund.
           (i) For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
   constitution:
                 (1) money in the fund is dedicated by this
   constitution; and
                 (2) an appropriation of state tax revenues for the
   purpose of depositing money to the credit of the fund is treated as
   if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by this
   constitution.
           SECTION 2. The following temporary provision is added to
   the Texas Constitution:
           TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) This temporary provision applies
   to the amendment to Article III of this constitution as proposed by
   the 88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, creating the broadband
   infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband access and
   assist in the financing of connectivity projects.
           (b) The change made to Article III of this constitution by
   the amendment described in Subsection (a) of this section takes
   effect January 1, 2024.
           (c) This temporary provision expires January 1, 2025.

My recommendation: YES. Don't see much downside to it.

Number 9

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is amended by
   adding Section 67-a to read as follows:
           Sec. 67-a. (a) As the Teacher Retirement System of Texas is
   actuarially sound according to an actuarial valuation update
   performed in February 2023, the 88th Legislature, Regular Session,
   2023:
                 (1) by general law may provide a cost-of-living
   adjustment to annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas
   who are eligible for the adjustment as determined by that general
   law; and
                 (2) may appropriate an amount of money from the
   general revenue fund to the comptroller of public accounts for
   deposit to the trust fund of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas
   to pay the adjustment authorized by Subdivision (1) of this
   subsection.
           (b) For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
   constitution, an appropriation of state tax revenues made by the
   88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, for the purpose described
   by Subsection (a)(1) of this section is treated as if it were an
   appropriation of revenues dedicated by this constitution.
           (c) This section expires September 1, 2025.

My recommendation: YES. Teachers deserve it. Drop in the bucket from general fund.

Number 10

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is amended by
   adding Section 67-a to read as follows:
           Sec. 67-a. (a) As the Teacher Retirement System of Texas is
   actuarially sound according to an actuarial valuation update
   performed in February 2023, the 88th Legislature, Regular Session,
   2023:
                 (1) by general law may provide a cost-of-living
   adjustment to annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas
   who are eligible for the adjustment as determined by that general
   law; and
                 (2) may appropriate an amount of money from the
   general revenue fund to the comptroller of public accounts for
   deposit to the trust fund of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas
   to pay the adjustment authorized by Subdivision (1) of this
   subsection.
           (b) For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
   constitution, an appropriation of state tax revenues made by the
   88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, for the purpose described
   by Subsection (a)(1) of this section is treated as if it were an
   appropriation of revenues dedicated by this constitution.
           (c) This section expires September 1, 2025.

My recommendation: NO. Fuck them, that's why. These assholes make obscene profit on the marked up prices of their products. The last thing I'm going to do is give them a hand-out. FUPM.

Number 11

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Subsection (c-1), Section 59, Article XVI, Texas
   Constitution, is amended to read as follows:
           (c-1) In addition and only as provided by this subsection,
   the Legislature may authorize conservation and reclamation
   districts to develop and finance with taxes those types and
   categories of parks and recreational facilities that were not
   authorized by this section to be developed and financed with taxes
   before September 13, 2003. For development of such parks and
   recreational facilities, the Legislature may authorize
   indebtedness payable from taxes as may be necessary to provide for
   improvements and maintenance only for a conservation and
   reclamation district all or part of which is located in Bexar
   County, Bastrop County, Waller County, Travis County, Williamson
   County, Harris County, Galveston County, Brazoria County, Fort Bend
   County, [or] Montgomery County, or El Paso County, or for the
   Tarrant Regional Water District, a water control and improvement
   district located in whole or in part in Tarrant County. All the
   indebtedness may be evidenced by bonds of the conservation and
   reclamation district, to be issued under regulations as may be
   prescribed by law. The Legislature may also authorize the levy and
   collection within such district of all taxes, equitably
   distributed, as may be necessary for the payment of the interest and
   the creation of a sinking fund for the payment of the bonds and for
   maintenance of and improvements to such parks and recreational
   facilities. The indebtedness shall be a lien on the property
   assessed for the payment of the bonds. The Legislature may not
   authorize the issuance of bonds or provide for indebtedness under
   this subsection against a conservation and reclamation district
   unless a proposition is first submitted to the qualified voters of
   the district and the proposition is adopted. This subsection
   expands the authority of the Legislature with respect to certain
   conservation and reclamation districts and is not a limitation on
   the authority of the Legislature with respect to conservation and
   reclamation districts and parks and recreational facilities
   pursuant to this section as that authority existed before September
   13, 2003.
           SECTION 2. The legislature intends by the amendment
   proposed by Section 1 of this resolution to expand the authority of
   the legislature with regard to conservation and reclamation
   districts in El Paso County. The proposed amendment should not be
   construed as a limitation on the powers of the legislature or of a
   district with respect to parks and recreational facilities as those
   powers exist immediately before the amendment takes effect.

My recommendation: YES. Don't see any downside. Let El Paso do what El Paso needs to do.

Number 12

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Section 44, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, is
   amended by adding Subsection (d) to read as follows:
           (d) The office of County Treasurer in Galveston County is
   abolished. The Commissioners Court of Galveston County may employ
   or contract with a qualified person or may designate another county
   officer to perform any of the functions that would have been
   performed by the County Treasurer if the office had not been
   abolished.
           SECTION 2. The following temporary provision is added to
   the Texas Constitution:
           TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) The constitutional amendment
   proposed by the 88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, abolishing
   the office of County Treasurer in Galveston County takes effect
   only if, at the statewide election at which the amendment is
   submitted to and approved by the voters, a majority of the voters of
   Galveston County voting on the question at that election also favor
   the amendment. The amendment takes effect January 1, 2024, if the
   conditions of this subsection are met.
           (b) This temporary provision expires January 2, 2024.

My recommendation: NO. Something's fishy about this.

Number 13

Spoiler

Quote

SECTION 1. Section 1-a(1), Article V, Texas Constitution,
   is amended to read as follows:
                 (1) Subject to the further provisions of this Section,
   the Legislature shall provide for the retirement and compensation
   of Justices and Judges of the Appellate Courts and District and
   Criminal District Courts on account of length of service, age and
   disability, and for their reassignment to active duty where and
   when needed. The office of every such Justice and Judge shall
   become vacant on the expiration of the term during which the
   incumbent reaches the age of 79 [~~seventy-five (75)~~] years or such
   earlier age, not less than 75 [~~seventy (70)~~] years, as the
   Legislature may prescribe[, except that if a Justice or Judge
   elected to serve or fill the remainder of a six-year term reaches
   the age of seventy-five (75) years during the first four years of
   the term, the office of that Justice or Judge shall become vacant on
   December 31 of the fourth year of the term to which the Justice or
   Judge was elected].

My recommendation: YES. The fewer judicial races, and the fewer inexperienced judges, the better. Let them decide when they want to retire. We've already de facto raised the retirement age by fucking the economy, anyway.

Number 14

Spoiler

Quote

            SECTION 1. Article III, Texas Constitution, is amended by
   adding Section 49-e-1 to read as follows:
           Sec. 49-e-1. (a) The centennial parks conservation fund is
   established as a trust fund outside the treasury. In accordance
   with general law, the fund may be used only for the creation and
   improvement of state parks.
           (b) The centennial parks conservation fund consists of:
                 (1) money appropriated, credited, or transferred to
   the fund by the legislature;
                 (2) gifts, grants, and donations received by the Parks
   and Wildlife Department or the department's successor in function
   for a purpose for which money in the fund may be used under this
   section; and
                 (3) investment earnings and interest earned on amounts
   credited to the fund.
           (c) The legislature may appropriate money from the
   centennial parks conservation fund to the Parks and Wildlife
   Department or the department's successor in function for the
   purposes prescribed for the fund by this section and general law.
           (d) For purposes of Section 22, Article VIII, of this
   constitution:
                 (1) money in the centennial parks conservation fund is
   dedicated by this constitution; and
                 (2) an appropriation of state tax revenues for the
   purpose of depositing money to the credit of the fund is treated as
   if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by this
   constitution.
           (e) The reasonable expenses of managing the fund and its
   assets shall be paid from the fund.

My recommendation: YES. Love our state parks. If this means they stay funded without having to beg every session, I'm for it.

CBT · October 23, 2023

Houston Chronicle had a little background on the proposed amendments. I found it interesting.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/texas-constitution-amendment-recommendations-2023-18378771.php

edit: found the DMN one also: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/we-recommend/2023/10/23/we-recommend-2023-texas-constitutional-amendments/

Edited October 23, 2023 by CBT

Nice Guy Eddie · October 23, 2023

The chronicle surprised me that they were in favor of raising the judicial retirement age. They pointed out that some older judges add value to the courts and bringing issues to the Legislature. They added that if any judge was found to be incompetent due to illness there are mechanisms in place to remove them at any age.

Local papers aren’t perfect and maybe citizens disagree with them, but all communities need a solid local news source. And while they may have individual writers that you disagree with, they often present a balanced view to some extent.

atomheartbevo · October 24, 2023

10 hours ago, kevwun said:

The one about agriculture is being pushed so hard that I am positive it is a very bad idea.

9 hours ago, kevwun said:

So Prop 1 is a solution looking for a problem. I wonder what it's real purpose is?

I like Nolan Ryan but he's pushing 80 and it wouldn't be hard for somebody to ask him a question, get his response, and slap it on a flyer (which I got last week).

I jokingly told a relative that it would make it hard for the state or city/county to deal with, oh I don't know, Chinese or Saudi farms/ranches that begin sucking up all their water or some big fucking Tyson-like chicken operations that move in next door.

HenryJames · October 24, 2023

Not sure any of this shit needs to be in the constitution.

bernorange · October 24, 2023

7 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Not sure any of this shit needs to be in the constitution.

~~Deserves~~ Needs got nothing to do with it.

Satchel · October 24, 2023

On 10/23/2023 at 2:46 PM, chainsaw said:

Number 1

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: NO. It is probably going to pre-empt well-reasoned city ordinances that stop animal abusers from stuffing livestock onto tiny urban plots of land that they are renting out from an absentee landlord. Might even invalidate lease terms and open the floodgates for yuppies to keep chicken coops in their highrise balconies. Not very well thought out or well written.

Number 2

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. I don't see any downside, but it might not deliver everything intended because it allows the legislature to create "additional eligibility requirements" that will certainly be something like "donate to the Alliance Defending Freedom" or "sign this pledge that the 2020 election was stolen."

Number 3

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: NO. This benefits nobody deserving of any benefit. Fuck the rich. Fuck Harlan Crow. I hope Merrick Garland personally raids his properties, liquidates all his assets, and gives the money to Planned Parenthood.

Number 4

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. The homestead cap needs to be modernized. I haven't done the math to see what the revenue consequences will be short term or long term, but generally speaking we should be taxing the rich and not relying on homesteads for funding our schools.

Number 5

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. I don't see the downside here. Interest, dividends and investment income from some passive investment, capped at $100M, to make the UTSAs and UTRGVs better is the first of many steps we should have already taken to get the UT system on par academically with the UC system.

Number 6

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. Don't see any downside here. Water is good. We need it. Having an untouchable fund is a step in the right direction.

Number 7

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: NO. I don't want to "incentivize" a goddamn thing if it's not renewable energy. Eat a dick, Schwertner (Author).

Number 8

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. Don't see much downside to it.

Number 9

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. Teachers deserve it. Drop in the bucket from general fund.

Number 10

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: NO. Fuck them, that's why. These assholes make obscene profit on the marked up prices of their products. The last thing I'm going to do is give them a hand-out. FUPM.

Number 11

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. Don't see any downside. Let El Paso do what El Paso needs to do.

Number 12

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: NO. Something's fishy about this.

Number 13

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. The fewer judicial races, and the fewer inexperienced judges, the better. Let them decide when they want to retire. We've already de facto raised the retirement age by fucking the economy, anyway.

Number 14

Reveal hidden contents

My recommendation: YES. Love our state parks. If this means they stay funded without having to beg every session, I'm for it.

The DFW MSA has almost 8 million people and is the largest one in the country without an AAU school in its midst. Texas can and should do better.

Js1 · October 24, 2023

My vote went:

No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

YGIFS · October 24, 2023

That reads a lot like your verbal responses to experimenting on prom night. Not judging. Bible says not to.

I'm honestly still torn on a few. Especially the 2 Travis County bonds. Not worth a separate thread but worth discussing...if anybody has some inside baseball on them.

Brisketexan · October 24, 2023

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

My vote went:

No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

You're Madeline Kahn?

bolverk · October 24, 2023

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're Madeline Kahn?

Biff Tannen · October 25, 2023

3 hours ago, YGIFS said:

That reads a lot like your verbal responses to experimenting on prom night. Not judging. Bible says not to.

I'm honestly still torn on a few. Especially the 2 Travis County bonds. Not worth a separate thread but worth discussing...if anybody has some inside baseball on them.

Well you see we need more bike lanes.

Js1 · October 25, 2023

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You're Madeline Kahn?

I’m 34, I have no idea what this is

YGIFS · October 25, 2023

Three things that surprise me and I am not easily surprised.

1. You're only 34.

2. You don't know what movie this is from. KAHN! is a national treasure, gone too soon.

3. I've watched this film at least 20 times and I never noticed the rack on the blonde in the back.

tx 3 putt · October 25, 2023

On 10/23/2023 at 11:27 AM, Brisketexan said:

Prop 1: NO. It’s too broad, and could even limit the power of the state to limit harmful activities (that CAFO next door, letting rivers of pig shit flow onto your land? Good luck using a statute to enforce against that, that activity is now arguably constitutionally protected – they’ll sure take that position).

Prop 2: YES. This creates something of a back-door subsidy for child care facilities, which we desperately need.

Prop 3: NO. This is just a stunt to say “no more taxes.” Texas already has shitty taxing options available, no need to put an amendment in place to make them even shittier.

Prop 4: MAYBE? It’s a lot of silliness and trade-offs, and is temporary. I dunno. Vote how you want. I’ll probably vote No, just because anything this Lege does that isn’t plain as day is actually fuckery (and much of their fuckery is plain as day as well).

Prop 5: probably YES. Better funding of our other public universities (not Texas or aggy) is needed. Still seems overly complex, but I’m a tentative yes.

Prop 6: STRONG YES. This is actually the bread-and-butter of what our legislature should be handling. The TWDB is a good agency all in all, and the projects it will fund are quite needed. Water is our looming crisis (actually, it’s a crisis already).

Prop 7: NO. We privatize profits, we socialize costs? Fuck that. We built a privatized electric grid, this is their John Galt dream. Let it rise and fall on John Galt principles. It’s a shitty model, they don’t need our taxpayer funds to fix it and insulate profit-takers from risk.

Prop 8: YES, but I hear the arguments against it. I think broadband is a public utility and should be funded as such. But our lege wants to make it a hybrid, and will probably fuck this up. That said….we need the infrastructure.

Prop 9: YES. We need to have reasonable funding of our teacher retirement system, including being able to make COLA adjustments.

Prop 10: MAYBE. I see why it’s proposed (make stockpiled medical equipment, like masks, tax-exempt), but I doubt it will really work that way.

Prop 11: YES. It just adds El Paso County to the list of counties with reclamation districts that can develop parks. We need this because our Constitution is overly specific about that shit.

Prop 12: NO. Don’t eliminate county treasurer. Separation of powers matters.

Prop 13: NO. For fuck’s sake, 70 or 75 is plenty old enough for a judge. GTFO after that age. We don’t need to raise it to 79.

Prop 14: YES. State parks is a core function, something the lege should pay attention to. So, I support this one.

voted today, this is how my ballot was submitted

Js1 · October 25, 2023

22 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

voted today, this is how my ballot was submitted

I missed the “maybe” option on my machines. Rigged!

pyrohornIII · October 25, 2023

I agree with Brisket on most of his takes, and I believe Chainsaw has my same dance card.

Prop 13 is a Yes for me because someone higher up the food chain told me we had a few really good Dem judges who were about to be retired, and this would allow they keep their benches a few more years. I also had one of them tell me it's no fun going before a judge who is sundowning. So I guess it's a shrug, but I'd be a definite YES if they had added in some types of mental fitness standards.

On Prop 6, one of the things the Tribune posted was something about the treatment of fracking water. That gave me pause, thinking maybe it would be a way for O&G to get taxpayers to pay for some environmental obligation of theirs. But the overall promise of the venture outweighs the negative, especially since it seems to have pretty good oversight built in.

Quote

A portion of the fund would have to be used for water infrastructure projects in rural areas as well as for water conservation strategies and water loss projects. At least 25% of the fund would be used for the New Water Supply Fund for Texas, which will support projects to increase the state’s water supply through, for example, marine desalination and treating “produced water,” which comes from the ground during the oil fracking process.

What you need to know about Texas’ Nov. 7 constitutional amendment election | The Texas Tribune

One of the provisions of Prop 5 is that the to be eligible for this funding not only does the school have to be a state university, but also have a research budget of at least 20M/yr. and graduate at least 45 Phd's for three years running. So at least it sets a standard. I was afraid we'd be sending Baylor a wad of cash to research for proof of creationism over evolution.

On Prop 4, the temporary part bothers me. Reminds me of the Trump Tax Plan. Delicious looking icing on a turd. Once the rainy-day fund begins to dwindle, where will the ISDs turn for the shortfall in funding due to their tax base being reduced a couple of years earlier?

I'll be interested to see if the Lake Limestone screwup isn't early in the priorities for Prop 14 plans.

bernorange · October 25, 2023

4 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

... One of the provisions of Prop 5 is that the to be eligible for this funding not only does the school have to be a state university, ...

As discussed earlier in the thread, the fund proposed in Prop 5 already exists. Prop 5 is proposing to rename the existing fund and then allow it to siphon off money from Texas rainy day fund. Are funds purpose built or or all they all slush funds that can be raided and redirected on a whim? If an idea is worthy (ie. increasing funding for the existing fund), why can't the legislature appropriate funds for it directly? What happens when Texas needs that rainy day fund for its intended purpose?

Biff Tannen · October 25, 2023

2 hours ago, bernorange said:

What happens when Texas needs that rainy day fund for its intended purpose?

Oh sorry, we used that on razor wire and floating barriers for imaginary border boogeymen.

pyrohornIII · October 25, 2023

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Oh sorry, we used that on razor wire and floating barriers for imaginary border boogeymen.

Or buying goodwill with the voters by using it to cover the gaping holes in things we've defunded, like parks and education.

Dnaguy · October 26, 2023

Voted.

Prop 7 ‘s wording makes me rage.

This is blatantly trying to conceal its true intention.

Arg.

Oh well. It’ll get approved bc good people think their going to help with high electricity cost / reliability issues when all it’ll do is siphon off state money to build more natural gas plants that they’ll shit down during a crisis so they artificially cause super high elect costs.

Nice Guy Eddie · October 26, 2023

13 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Voted.

Prop 7 ‘s wording makes me rage.

This is blatantly trying to conceal its true intention.

Arg.

Oh well. It’ll get approved bc good people think their going to help with high electricity cost / reliability issues when all it’ll do is siphon off state money to build more natural gas plants that they’ll shit down during a crisis so they artificially cause super high elect costs.

The natural gas generator owners are saying that they actually don't want to build any new power generators due to the uncertainty of future electrical prices not the upfront capital costs. My guess is that the next move from the Legislature is to somehow ensure tax dollars will prop up any operational profits.

tokamak · October 27, 2023

I went same as @chainsaw, except #4 and #13.

Regarding #4, this is the property tax package that the lege spent basically its entire session this year working on (Patrick's plan vs Abbott's). It just needs a rubber stamp from voters. I expect it will pass with a huge margin because tax relief = good. The major point is a cut in property taxes and money from the general fund to make school districts whole. Even though it would have direct financial benefits for me (I'm a homeowner), I voted no for a variety of reasons. Number 1, there's no plan whatsoever about what to do when the state's surplus runs out and school districts are still missing a bunch of tax dollars. There's also a bunch of other random stuff in it that's questionable (elected appraisal boards, cut in franchise tax). Also, fuck the lege (and Abbott).

On #13, I get the arguments in favor, but I'm kinda over super olds in elected office at this point. No more Feinsteins.

chainsaw · October 27, 2023

54 minutes ago, tokamak said:

I went same as @chainsaw, except #4 and #13.

Regarding #4, this is the property tax package that the lege spent basically its entire session this year working on (Patrick's plan vs Abbott's). It just needs a rubber stamp from voters. I expect it will pass with a huge margin because tax relief = good. The major point is a cut in property taxes and money from the general fund to make school districts whole. Even though it would have direct financial benefits for me (I'm a homeowner), I voted no for a variety of reasons. Number 1, there's no plan whatsoever about what to do when the state's surplus runs out and school districts are still missing a bunch of tax dollars. There's also a bunch of other random stuff in it that's questionable (elected appraisal boards, cut in franchise tax). Also, fuck the lege (and Abbott).

On #13, I get the arguments in favor, but I'm kinda over super olds in elected office at this point. No more Feinsteins.

I respect your reasoning on 4. I was somewhat hesitant that it was some sort of trap or monkeys paw situation, but I think a lot of the tax relief will be felt by working and middle class people and not by people who have second homes. If the school districts run out of money because of this, I would imagine it would prompt the people to demand some kind of cash infusion from the state's coffers. A lot of these conservative pet projects aren't popular and won't ever become popular. We just need another 10 or so years for these dinosaurs to die off. In the meantime, I'll gladly accept a higher homestead exemption.

On 13, I don't feel too strongly about it. I just personally know a lot of very sharp people near or over 80, and seeing good judges pushed out due to something like this (instead of the other reasons they could be pushed out, such as actually demonstrating literal Feinstein-like senility) to me struck me as a solution in search of a problem. But it's not one of the more important propositions on the ballot so if it fails, it fails. No big deal to me.

Nice Guy Eddie · October 27, 2023

I know #4 will pass but I don’t understand the math. If we lower the local school district taxes wont that eventually impact education? I know the state is giving a one-time payout to the schools but that won’t be repeated.

If the state wants to reduce the tax burden on its citizens, why not drop the sales tax percentage? You know, the tax money that goes to the state. And is paid by everyone not just home owners.

bernorange · October 27, 2023

I got my local ISD property tax bill in the mail the other day. They calculated the tax as if Prop 4 had passed and included a paragraph at the end of the bill stating that if Prop 4 does not pass, they will send me a second bill for the extra tax (that is no longer owed if Prop 4 does pass).

Nice Guy Eddie · October 27, 2023

22 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I got my local ISD property tax bill in the mail the other day. They calculated the tax as if Prop 4 had passed and included a paragraph at the end of the bill stating that if Prop 4 does not pass, they will send me a second bill for the extra tax (that is no longer owed if Prop 4 does pass).

Smart of them. It will pass with 94-95%, and this way they get their tax bills out on time.

tokamak · October 27, 2023

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I know #4 will pass but I don’t understand the math. If we lower the local school district taxes wont that eventually impact education? I know the state is giving a one-time payout to the schools but that won’t be repeated.

If the state wants to reduce the tax burden on its citizens, why not drop the sales tax percentage? You know, the tax money that goes to the state. And is paid by everyone not just home owners.

That's my understanding. It's somewhat like the Trump tax cut, in that there is zero long term plan to pay for it. However, unlike the federal government, Texas has to balance the budget. The lege's response to this when they were working on the bill was literally "eh, we'll figure it out later". It has to be one of these 3 options, though:

The state continues to run a surplus forever and makes the decision every two years in perpetuity to send a big chunk of that money to public schools.
The lege raises taxes.
Public schools take a big haircut in revenues.

Which one of those three do we think is most likely?

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Smart of them. It will pass with 94-95%, and this way they get their tax bills out on time.

It's a little blackmail-y, but I assume it's also much easier for them to send a 2nd bill rather than charge the full amount now and then issue every single homeowner a refund later.

Nice Guy Eddie · October 27, 2023

21 minutes ago, tokamak said:

That's my understanding. It's somewhat like the Trump tax cut, in that there is zero long term plan to pay for it. However, unlike the federal government, Texas has to balance the budget. The lege's response to this when they were working on the bill was literally "eh, we'll figure it out later". It has to be one of these 3 options, though:

The state continues to run a surplus forever and makes the decision every two years in perpetuity to send a big chunk of that money to public schools.

The lege raises taxes.

Public schools take a big haircut in revenues.

Which one of those three do we think is most likely?

It's a little blackmail-y, but I assume it's also much easier for them to send a 2nd bill rather than charge the full amount now and then issue every single homeowner a refund later.

Good points.

I struggle with laws like this because I, even as a non-parent, feel the point of the public school system is to best educate our kids. However I'm reminded in the public education thread, that some in power are actively trying to take down our public school system. It's no surprise they want to defund the schools. It plays into their narrative that public school education is a failure once they take much of the money away.

And don't get me wrong, I know schools waste money. But defunding them will unlikely change that waste.

CBT · October 27, 2023

1 hour ago, tokamak said:

That's my understanding. It's somewhat like the Trump tax cut, in that there is zero long term plan to pay for it. However, unlike the federal government, Texas has to balance the budget. The lege's response to this when they were working on the bill was literally "eh, we'll figure it out later". It has to be one of these 3 options, though:

The state continues to run a surplus forever and makes the decision every two years in perpetuity to send a big chunk of that money to public schools.

The lege raises taxes.

Public schools take a big haircut in revenues.

Which one of those three do we think is most likely?

It's a little blackmail-y, but I assume it's also much easier for them to send a 2nd bill rather than charge the full amount now and then issue every single homeowner a refund later.

I'm very much afraid that it's 3 given our state's history in fucking public schools. Prop 4 is one I've gone back and forth on the most, but I think I'm leaning against. Appreciate yours and everyone discussion of all the props.

Dnaguy · October 27, 2023

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I know #4 will pass but I don’t understand the math. If we lower the local school district taxes wont that eventually impact education? I know the state is giving a one-time payout to the schools but that won’t be repeated.

If the state wants to reduce the tax burden on its citizens, why not drop the sales tax percentage? You know, the tax money that goes to the state. And is paid by everyone not just home owners.

What's the golden rule, again?

He who holds the gold makes the rules.

Property taxes fund local shit. And it is collected locally.

Sales tax goes to the state.

Nice Guy Eddie · October 28, 2023

23 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

What's the golden rule, again?

He who holds the gold makes the rules.

Property taxes fund local shit. And it is collected locally.

Sales tax goes to the state.

Yes but the state is deciding new rules for local property tax. Which is their legal right but why not let locals decide local matters? And this is about defunding public schools not giving you a tax break.

On the amendment about Galveston’s county treasurer, the problem as I read it was that the former treasurer was conned into giving $500K to someone who ran with the money. Now they want to eliminate the position because they voted in a moron. Why not just elect competent people and create/follow fiscal governance policies?

Dnaguy · October 28, 2023

21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yes but the state is deciding new rules for local property tax. Which is their legal right but why not let locals decide local matters? And this is about defunding public schools not giving you a tax break.

On the amendment about Galveston’s county treasurer, the problem as I read it was that the former treasurer was conned into giving $500K to someone who ran with the money. Now they want to eliminate the position because they voted in a moron. Why not just elect competent people and create/follow fiscal governance policies?

Reduce the size of government until you can drown it in a bathtub is why.

Playbook:

Run on limited gov

Run incompetent people

Get people angry about morons

People vote for more limited gov.

Rinse and repeat.

The state gov taking over all matters local is just the natural uniparty progression towards a authoritarian state.

Social issues blind the masses while craven power hungry people like Abbot are used / a conduit for dark money rich fuckers strip out all the checks / balances and extract the peoples $ for themselves.

It’s all the shit republicans accuse dems and George Soros of… just in real life and right in front of you. Not need for some secret global conspiracy. It’s far more simple, happening, and works due to our arcane campaign finance laws.
Every accusation…. And whatnot.

crash_davis · October 30, 2023

If you voted, thank you.

If you haven't YET voted, go fucking vote you communist bastard.

UTGrad98 · October 30, 2023

Voted. I know I voted against the mandatory retirement age increase and the wealth tax issue. Those 2 stuck out. I read this thread before I went as well as read on line. I voted for the property tax deductions increase and the teacher retirement COL raise.

SydneyCarton · October 30, 2023

23 minutes ago, UTGrad98 said:

Voted. I know I voted against the mandatory retirement age increase and the wealth tax issue. Those 2 stuck out. I read this thread before I went as well as read on line. I voted for the property tax deductions increase and the teacher retirement COL raise.

I voted.

1 Water Prop - No. Seems like another effort to prevent any oversight for assholes who might want to pollute water, and do whatever they want. No thanks.

2 Childcare - Yes.

3 Wealth Tax - No, I don't think we need a constitutional amendment to make sure we nevery institute a wealthy tax.

4 Property Tax - No, fuck greg abbot.

5 Other Univeristy Fund - Yes, more money for schools, great. Lets do it, and hope they aren't just going to teach Bible Study by 2030.

6 Water Fund - Yes.

7 Energy Fund - Yes, it's all shit but we still need more plants. And have them fucking weatherproofed (not a part of the deal).

8 Broadband - Yes.

9 Teacher Retirement - Yes.

10 Medical Equipment - Yes. Sure, get some more job creation in the medical field.

11 El Paso Parks - Yes, sure, I like green spaces

12 Galveston Treasurer - No, stop gutting govt checks you republican fucks.

13 Judge Age - No - Fuck your old judges.

14 State Parks - Yes, I like green spaces.

Also, this was my first time/noticing that in Texas they've removed all the fucking party affiliation from candidates. My lawyer friend said it's becuase they were losing all the judgeship elections, no one voting R. Whatever reason, it fucking sucked balls when I got to the council races I knew jack shit about.

October 30, 2023

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Also, this was my first time/noticing that in Texas they've removed all the fucking party affiliation from candidates. My lawyer friend said it's becuase they were losing all the judgeship elections, no one voting R.

I hadn't heard this. Is this statewide or local policy? I wouldn't believe that they were losing votes because of having "R" next to the name. Every other office that's a big benefit in this state.

SydneyCarton · October 30, 2023

Just now, FirstTimeCaller said:

I hadn't heard this. Is this statewide or local policy? I wouldn't believe that they were losing votes because of having "R" next to the name. Every other office that's a big benefit in this state.

I don't know if it was state or local, but it certainly fucked me up here in Houston. And that's just what my attorney buddy told me what was behind the rule changes. I had just assumed it was their next obvious step in voter fuckery, like removing the ability to vote straight ticket.

So it was probably local, but I'm in Harris Country. We're blue. I know why they would want to do that, but we're blue so why would our local officals do that?

Js1 · October 30, 2023

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don't know if it was state or local, but it certainly fucked me up here in Houston. And that's just what my attorney buddy told me what was behind the rule changes. I had just assumed it was their next obvious step in voter fuckery, like removing the ability to vote straight ticket.

So it was probably local, but I'm in Harris Country. We're blue. I know why they would want to do that, but we're blue so why would our local officals do that?

If you're taking about the mayoral race, it's technically non-partisan so they don't list affiliation.

They eliminated straight ticket voting, but that isn't going to matter in 2023 because there's no partisan races.

SydneyCarton · October 30, 2023

Just now, Js1 said:

If you're taking about the mayoral race, it's technically non-partisan so they don't list affiliation.

They eliminated straight ticket voting, but that isn't going to matter in 2023 because there's no partisan races.

Dude, it was all the way down to the council member at large races. I guess those dont list affiliations either? Either way, it sucked becuase I hadn't prepped for that.

So my soliution was to vote for the female with the most ethnic sounding name in each race. Get fucked white male patriarchy.

Js1 · October 30, 2023

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Dude, it was all the way down to the council member at large races. I guess those dont list affiliations either? Either way, it sucked becuase I hadn't prepped for that.

So my soliution was to vote for the female with the most ethnic sounding name in each race. Get fucked white male patriarchy.

Nope, most municipal elections are non-partisan, which includes the council races. You pretty much have to research who endorses them and is donating to them. Not as obvious as SJL and Whitmire being Democrats.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Js1

troph · October 31, 2023

On 10/9/2023 at 9:43 AM, Brisketexan said:

It's not a groundwater pumping amendment. It's for developing/improving water infrastructure (every drop of water not lost through leaky pipe is an extra drop in our supply), and about developing different sources of water:

The last one isn't about producing water that originates from aquifers, it's about using aquifers as storage mechanisms (inject water when you have it up top, draw from what you injected when you need it). This prop is the kind of thing the legislature SHOULD be doing - managing the business of the state, and husbanding and improving our resources.

Hey man, I don’t need republicans husbanding anything I’m involved with. Maybe some ambiguously gay or bi dude that’s emo and nice and not too hairy and definitely fit gotta be fit … but the Neanderthals roaming the halls of our state capitol? Yeah nah. No husbanding.

On 10/23/2023 at 11:27 AM, Brisketexan said:

Prop 1: NO. It’s too broad, and could even limit the power of the state to limit harmful activities (that CAFO next door, letting rivers of pig shit flow onto your land? Good luck using a statute to enforce against that, that activity is now arguably constitutionally protected – they’ll sure take that position).

Prop 2: YES. This creates something of a back-door subsidy for child care facilities, which we desperately need.

Prop 3: NO. This is just a stunt to say “no more taxes.” Texas already has shitty taxing options available, no need to put an amendment in place to make them even shittier.

Prop 4: MAYBE? It’s a lot of silliness and trade-offs, and is temporary. I dunno. Vote how you want. I’ll probably vote No, just because anything this Lege does that isn’t plain as day is actually fuckery (and much of their fuckery is plain as day as well).

Prop 5: probably YES. Better funding of our other public universities (not Texas or aggy) is needed. Still seems overly complex, but I’m a tentative yes.

Prop 6: STRONG YES. This is actually the bread-and-butter of what our legislature should be handling. The TWDB is a good agency all in all, and the projects it will fund are quite needed. Water is our looming crisis (actually, it’s a crisis already).

Prop 7: NO. We privatize profits, we socialize costs? Fuck that. We built a privatized electric grid, this is their John Galt dream. Let it rise and fall on John Galt principles. It’s a shitty model, they don’t need our taxpayer funds to fix it and insulate profit-takers from risk.

Prop 8: YES, but I hear the arguments against it. I think broadband is a public utility and should be funded as such. But our lege wants to make it a hybrid, and will probably fuck this up. That said….we need the infrastructure.

Prop 9: YES. We need to have reasonable funding of our teacher retirement system, including being able to make COLA adjustments.

Prop 10: MAYBE. I see why it’s proposed (make stockpiled medical equipment, like masks, tax-exempt), but I doubt it will really work that way.

Prop 11: YES. It just adds El Paso County to the list of counties with reclamation districts that can develop parks. We need this because our Constitution is overly specific about that shit.

Prop 12: NO. Don’t eliminate county treasurer. Separation of powers matters.

Prop 13: NO. For fuck’s sake, 70 or 75 is plenty old enough for a judge. GTFO after that age. We don’t need to raise it to 79.

Prop 14: YES. State parks is a core function, something the lege should pay attention to. So, I support this one.

And I pretty much agree with all of this.

pacman · October 31, 2023

Pretty much 9n board with chainsaw as well.

Except #4. It us just too poorly written and hastily thought out. I'd like the money but can't reward such pathetic governance.

bernorange · October 31, 2023

20 hours ago, crash_davis said:

If you voted, thank you.

If you haven't YET voted, go fucking vote you communist bastard.

Biff Tannen · October 31, 2023

Heading out to vote now

ChuckNorrisActionJeans · November 2, 2023

About to vote. Interesting that the tribune says prop 10 --the medical equipment exemption-- will further defund schools, as they collect these taxes

Homercles · November 2, 2023

Thanks for the tips, voted today. Only one I was sure about was our districts Prop A to raise teacher pay…being married to an educator and the PTA Treasurer meant I was already well versed with it.

Naturally my right wing Aggy fundamentalist Christian neighbor was vehemently against it but couldn’t tell me why.

Brisketexan · November 2, 2023

Just voted. Voted no on half of em.

chainsaw · November 3, 2023

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Just voted. Voted no on half of em.

Did you move from any of your recommendations?

Sign In

PSA: Nov 2023 Texas Constitutional Amendments (14)

Recommended Posts

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Link to comment

Share on other sites

chainsaw 9838

Link to comment

Share on other sites

CBT 1281

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Link to comment

Share on other sites

atomheartbevo 89450

Link to comment

Share on other sites

HenryJames 65890

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bernorange 8348

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Satchel 6908

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Js1 85114

Link to comment

Share on other sites

YGIFS 19449

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brisketexan 104628

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bolverk 29405

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Biff Tannen 45499

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Js1 85114

Link to comment

Share on other sites

YGIFS 19449

Link to comment

Share on other sites

tx 3 putt 76404

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Js1 85114

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pyrohornIII 4809

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bernorange 8348

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Biff Tannen 45499

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pyrohornIII 4809

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dnaguy 11777

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Link to comment

Share on other sites

tokamak 6352

Link to comment

Share on other sites

chainsaw 9838

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Link to comment