Another Constitutional Election Ballot (crappy formatting there, Ballotpedia is upon us, and early voting starts today.
Here’s Texas Scorecard’s roundup, with input from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, True Texas Project, and the Huffines Liberty Foundation and links to Texas Legislative Council Analysis of the amendments. The Texan also has a roundup.
Here’s my quick and dirty list of propositions and recommendations.
- Proposition 1 (HJR 126): Protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management. This is the “right to farm” bill, which provides a bulwark against local, state and federal interference in food-growing activities, such as were messed with by some states during the 2020 Flu-Manchu panic (such as Michigan’s Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer banning seed sales. And remember, such interference in people growing food on their own land was blessed by the Supreme Court in Wickard vs. Flburn. Recommendation: Vote FOR Proposition 1.
- Proposition 2 (SJR 64): Authorizing a local option exemption from ad valorem taxation by a county or municipality of all or part of the appraised value of real property used to operate a child-care facility. Another subsidy for a favored industry. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 2.
- Proposition 3 (HJR 132): Prohibiting the imposition of an individual wealth or net worth tax, including a tax on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or family. A wealth tax is total commie bullshit. Recommendation: Vote FOR Proposition 3.
- Proposition 4 (HJR 2 from the second special session): Authorizing the legislature to establish a temporary limit on the maximum appraised value of real property other than a residence homestead for ad valorem tax purposes; to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district applicable to residence homesteads from $40,000 to $100,000; to adjust the amount of the limitation on school district ad valorem taxes imposed on the residence homesteads of the elderly or disabled to reflect increases in certain exemption amounts; to except certain appropriations to pay for ad valorem tax relief from the constitutional limitation on the rate of growth of appropriations; and to authorize the legislature to provide for a four-year term of office for a member of the board of directors of certain appraisal districts. Well, that’s a mouthful. I don’t care for the little unrelated special interest payoff shoved in at the end, but do appreciate the tax relief, temporary though it may be. Recommendation: Vote FOR Proposition 4.
- Proposition 5 (HJR 3): Relating to the Texas University Fund, which provides funding to certain institutions of higher education to achieve national prominence as major research universities and drive the state economy. Our social justice-infected universities need less money, not more, and if they’re not willing to give up being factories for radical leftwing indoctrination, they need hard reboots. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 5.
- Proposition 6 (SJR 75): Creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state. While there’s a need for various water projects around the state, “creating fund X administered by agency Y for the benefit of entity Z” type schemes always offer the opportunity of abuse, and the principle of subsidiarity demands that local entities pay for their own damn water projects, not rely on off-general budget slush funds. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 6.
- Proposition 7 (SJR 93): Providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities. While Texas needs more reliable grid, I see nothing about this proposition that would prevent the fund from being used to subsidize more of the unreliable “green” energy lawmakers already seem to love subsidizing. To quote the Huffines Foundation: “Proposition 7 would increase the cost of electricity without improving the reliability of the electric grid. It would also accelerate the trend toward ending market competition and putting Texas politicians and bureaucrats in control of the Texas electricity market. Texans should reject more subsidies for electric generators and let politicians know that grid reliability should be increased by ending renewable energy subsidies.” Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 7.
- Proposition 8 (HJR 125): Creating the broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband access and assist in the financing of connectivity projects. More corporate welfare for things the state shouldn’t be subsidizing. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 8.
- Proposition 9 (HJR 2 from the regular session): Authorizing the 88th Legislature to provide a cost-of-living adjustment to certain annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. TFR and TTP came out as neutral. While not philosophically opposed, I suggest voting against until there’s an outside audit to confirm that none of this money is being siphoned off into ESG investing. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 9.
- Proposition 10 (SJR 87): Authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation equipment or inventory held by a manufacturer of medical or biomedical products to protect the Texas healthcare network and strengthen our medical supply chain. More special interests carveouts. Vote AGAINST Proposition 10.
- Proposition 11 (SJR 32): Authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities. El Paso should pay for it’s parks out of general funds, not bonds, since parks don’t generate revenue to pay back bonds. Vote AGAINST Proposition 10.
- Proposition 12 (HJR 134): Providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County. Normally, I’d be for anything that eliminates a government official. But there’s this from TTP: “AGAINST –The current Treasurer campaigned on a promise to eliminate his position, which prompted this legislative action. Since one less government position means less government, we initially supported this amendment. However, we then heard from many conservative activists in the Galveston area who said they don’t want the position to be dissolved because there will be no more accountability to the office and it will be handed to cronies.” I sort of believe this, since my late uncle (who ran a restaurant there) said Galveston was corrupt from top to bottom. No recommendation.
- Proposition 13 (HJR 107): Increasing the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges. AGAINST. Turnover at least offers the opportunity of breaking up entrenched power.
- Proposition 14 (SJR 74): Providing for the creation of the centennial parks conservation fund to be used for the creation and improvement of state parks. More off-budget shenanigans. Vote AGAINST Proposition 12.
Williamson County early voting locations can be found here. Travis County early voting locations can be found here.
Tags: 2023 Elections, agriculture, Elections, Energy Policy, farming, Huffines Liberty Foundation, property tax reform, Regulation, Taxes, Teacher Retirement System of Texas, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, Texas, Texas Constitutional Amendment, Travis County, True Texas Project, Wickard vs. Filburn, Williamson County
“Proposition 13 (HJR 107): Increasing the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges. AGAINST. Turnover at least offers the opportunity of breaking up entrenched power.”
I do not live in Texas and have few insights into the political process there. However, analogous situations exist elsewhere that may offer guidance as to the merits of Proposition 13.
A 96 year-old judge with demonstrated competence is being railroaded by her colleagues. Law professor Glen Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, is on the board of NCLA, who is defending her position on the court.
Being old is neither meritorious nor worthy of censure. Legal competence is better determined by a broad-based jury of one’s peers than an arbitrary number.
https://nclalegal.org/re-complaint-against-circuit-judge-pauline-newman/
Prop 12: I live in Galveston County. While the City of Galveston government is corrupt, the county government is pretty clean (and largely Republican – not that there are not corrupt Republicans, but they get weeded out, at least in Galveston County).
There will be no more accountability with the the position there than with the position gone. It would be rolled into the Tax Collector/Assessors office eliminating one set of executive positions. Eliminating it would streamline things.
[…] Attacking so fast they won't know what hit them… « Texas Constitutional Amendment Voting Started Today (With Recommendations) […]
We agree on all points.
Some more information on why I am against Prop 14:
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission has started an Eminent Domain action to acquire Fairfield Lake State Park and the surrounding property from its owner.
Essentially, TPWC wants this land but they don’t want to pay what it is worth.
TPWC has crossed the Rubicon here. They are using your money and the court system to take private land. This needs to stop.
They clearly are not using our money for our benefit.
Prop 7. Per the text of the amendment: “For the purposes of this section, a generating facility is considered to be dispatchable if the facility’s output can be controlled primarily by forces under human control. An electric energy storage facility is not eligible for a loan under this section.”
I haven’t read the whole thing, so maybe non-“dispatchable” facilities are eligible for loans under other sections, but what I *think* the above is saying is that monies from this Proposition can’t be used for wind, solar, or other “green” energy sources. The Proposition is opposed by the usual tree-hugging contingent, and supported by more traditional energy suppliers, so clarification from someone with more expertise in legalese would be welcome.
If it *is* limited to energy facilities that actually work consistently (which seems to be the purpose), then I’d think it worth supporting.
Addendum regarding supporters and opposers. Here’s the text from the Ballotpedia page:
Who supports and opposes this amendment?
See also: Support and Opposition
ConocoPhillips, Koch Companies, BASF Corporation Employees PAC, Texas Association of Manufacturers, Texas Oil and Gas Association, Texas Pipeline Association, and Valero Energy Corporation PAC registered in support of the amendment. State Sen. Charles Schwertner (R-5), who sponsored the amendment, said, “Winter Storm Uri revealed the failures in our electricity market, specifically the lack of reliability. … S.B. 2627 creates a completion bonus and zero-interest loan for new dispatchable generation resources directly targeted at ‘steel in the ground.’ It also provides low-interest loans for existing dispatchable generators as a mechanism for generators to access capital needed to maintain and make necessary improvements to existing generation resources.”[4]
Oneok, Inc., Environment Texas, Texas Advanced Energy Business Alliance, and Texas Consumer Association registered in opposition to the amendment. Environment Texas Executive Director Luke Metzger said, “We need, and Texans want, more clean energy, not less. There is strong support for more wind and solar energy, more battery storage, more energy efficiency, and more interconnection with the national grid. Unfortunately, the Legislature ignored these solutions to strengthen our electric grid while protecting consumers and the environment.”[5]
Here’s a counter-argument on Proposition 1, from a local farmer who I’ve bought stuff from before.
Texans: Proposition 1 is NOT pro-small farm
I don’t send many emails like this, but felt this one was important and timely for our Texan readers.
Texans have a big election day coming up with a number of state constitutional amendments proposed on the ballot. A number of folks have contacted us asking our thoughts on how Proposition 1, the so-called “Right To Farm” amendment, affects us, and whether we feel its passage would benefit us as farmers.
The short answer is NO. We are opposed to this amendment. Read on for the why.
Our friend and advocate, Judith McGeary of Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA), is a wonderful resource to us for questions such as these. She works tirelessly to improve state and federal level policy to help small farms access their customers and be able to run their businesses and lives successfully. For example, she was a big part of pushing through state legislation that allows raw milk dairy farms to bring their product to market and delivery points, instead of forcing every customer to drive all the way to the farm to purchase raw milk. She also helped advocate for better cottage foods laws, allowing foods like fermented vegetables, coffee, and homemade bread to be made and sold in a home kitchen with minimal regulation. She has also been a big voice for no-nonsense meat processing regulations, which is so important as meat processing becomes more and more consolidated and monopolized, pricing small, safely-producing farms out of the business, while allowing huge meat packers to continue to produce sub-par meats at a regulatory advantage over smaller producers. All that to say, Judith is a gem, and I rely on her for insight on these complicated and frustrating matters. She permitted me to share her thoughts on Proposition 1, as published in a recent newsletter from FARFA:
——————————————
Prop 1 gives Big Ag more advantages to expand in Texas at the expense of our family farmers, our property rights, and our environmental protections.
1) We don’t need a constitutional amendment. There are already laws on the books, including brand new bills from this year’s legislative session.
2 ) Prop 1 goes too far. The current laws are already so strong that a neighbor lost a case in court against a feedlot whose manure lagoons were overflowing onto their property during storms. Prop 1 would make it even harder for neighbors, and even the government, to rein in bad actors like this.
That means harm not only to the “city slicker” neighbors so often referenced by the proponents, but to small and organic farmer neighbors as well.
Because of this, FARFA believes Prop 1 is too likely to harm small farmers, sets a bad legal precedent for property rights for everyone, and is bad for communities.
3) Too much power in unelected hands. The “generally accepted” agricultural practices that are central to the proposed protections will be defined by A&M Extension, which typically promotes consolidated, chemical-intensive agriculture – and there’s no process for input or review.
4) It would become nearly impossible to change. We can’t predict our needs or how this vaguely worded amendment would impact us in the future, but if it goes into the Constitution, it will take a ⅔ vote by future lawmakers and a new vote by the public to change it.
————————————-
We at ____ Ranch are voting NO to Prop 1 and encourage you to do the same. I would also encourage you to consider donating to support FARFA’s work to protect small farms and their customers from overreaching regulations that restrict their access to the kinds of foods they desire. Membership starts at $35 per year for individuals, $50 per year for farms, and so on.
[…] Here are my Texas constitutional amendment recommendations. […]
The only one that lost was 13