Texas Constitutional Amendments - 2009

The following recommendations regarding tomorrow's election were arrived at based upon thoughtful discussion of the principles AIP is founded upon, as well as the information readily available on the internet regarding the 11 Constitutional Amendments on the ballot.

These recommendations are respectfully submitted by interested AIP affiliates who have conferred together on this project, in the hopes that it can be useful to all Texas Conservative voters as a voter guide.

Each proposition is followed by our recommended vote as well as a short paragraph or two of explanation.

Proposition 1: No

This is an effort to authorize cities and counties to raise taxes via bonds in order to create buffer zones around military bases, in an effort to prevent bases from being closed.
While the purpose sounds good enough, cities and counties already have the option of land-use restrictions, zoning laws, etc. and do not need another excuse to simply raise taxes via tax-increment financing.
HB4130 was proposed during the 2009 Legislative session and would have authorized cities and counties to issue bonds or notes, including tax increment bonds, but it died. It was a bad idea then and fortunately the Legislature didn't pass it. We the People of Texas do not need to pass it either.


Proposition 2: Yes

This is an effort to provide the same protections for residence homesteads that are currently afforded to agricultural and timber land. In this way, none of these types of land can be appraised for anything but what it is used for.
One of the best arguments for this proposal was actually not originally intended that way. Opponents tried to make the point that doing this could potentially reduce taxable property values and thereby reduce local tax revenues. To which all of us who favor less government and less taxation should shout, "We hope it does just that!"


Proposition 3: No

This is an effort to remove the current constitutional requirement that enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for property appraisals must originate in the county where the tax is imposed.
The State of Texas already influences property appraisal standards and practices through the training provided to appraisers. County appraisal districts know their local markets better than state officials do, so a one size fits all solution isn't the best for increasing accuracy in appraisals.
Finally, this will result in a moving of the "seat of power" further away from the individual and towards the state. Thus, it cannot be supported by anyone with a belief in smaller government.


Proposition 4: No

While proponents of this say that it is an effort to increase funding for our Universities that will result in a higher profile and thus greater academic competitiveness, this is really about providing a limitation on other universities around the state so that an elite handful can have more money to play with.
Technically, this proposal wouldn't raise taxes, as it is money that's already been set aside for education, however we believe, as do others, that this will simply result in and encourage further reliance on the taxpayers, rather than causing universities to seek additional private funding.
The other argument being used that this would somehow elevate the profile of these "research universities" and thus provide some additional benefits to the students who attend them, is completely unsupportable with any amount of research. Most universities simply act like "compulsive gamblers and exiled royalty; there is never enough money to satisfy their desires." That quote is from former Harvard president Derek Bok.


Proposition 5: No

This is an effort to form consolidated appraisal review boards, which according to proponents would increase efficiencies.
Unfortunately, just like Amendment #3 this is really an effort to move the "seat of power" further away from the individual and towards the state. Local appraisal review boards know their county markets and local economic realities. Changing that would result in a loss of local control and should not be supported.
Another way to view this is as though these appraisal review boards were a "jury of your peers" who are authorized to resolve disputes between the appraisal district and We the People. Since we are afforded the right to a trial heard by a jury of our peers, the same should apply to appeals of tax disputes. In fact, if this was also the case at the Federal level, there might be a lot less frustration with the IRS. Maybe.


Proposition 6: Neutral

This is an effort to authorize the Veteran's Land Board to continuously re-issue bonds previously authorized, rather than returning to the voters for new authorizations, every time they run into the authorized limits. These bonds are repayed by the veterans themselves, through the repayment of their mortgage loans.
On the supporter side, this would allow uninterrupted bonding authority for the VLB, so that they can continue to finance land purchases and home mortgages for Texas Veterans at lower than market rates. Because these bonds are self-sustaining and because they've not been allowed to reuse bond authorizations, the VLB must continuously return for additional authorizations, even though already issued bonds are being actively retired. Finally, the foreclosure rate on the loans issued by the VLB has remained less than 0.5% even during the current economic downdraft. Finally, the VLB has a historical basis going all the way back to the Alamo and is designed solely for the benefit of Texas veterans.
On the opponent side, voters are being asked to re-authorize bonds originally issued as long as 60 years ago and since paid off and retired. In addition, while these bonds have historically been paid off by the veterans who benefit, they are technically counted as state debt and are thus subject to repayment by the tax payers if the VLB and the veterans themselves default. In addition, veterans benefits should be handled at the federal level, not the state level.


Proposition 7: Yes

This is an effort to correct an oversight in the Texas Constitution that allows members of the Texas State Guard to also hold another civil office, such as Justice of the peace, county commissioner, postmaster, etc.
We already allow members of the National Guard, National Guard Reserves and retired members of the US Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard the same privilege.


Proposition 8: No

This is an effort to authorize the State of Texas to contribute resources and funding for the establishment, operations and maintenance of a Veterans Hospital in the Rio Grande Valley.
This is purely an effort to get the Federal government to do its job, by showing that Texas supports the effort. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the Federal government will in fact build a VA hospital in the Valley and thus it is erroneous to assume that such an authorization in the State Constitution will actually lead to any Federal action.
Finally, HB 2217 was already passed by the Legislature and took effect June 19, 2009 and was not contingent on voter approval of such a constitutional amendment. Thus the amendment is on the face of it superfluous and a waste of the voters time.


Proposition 9: No

This is an effort to enshrine the Texas Open Beaches Act, Natural Resources Code, ch. 61 into the Texas Constitution.
Unfortunately, this Amendment would further undermine the property rights of individual home owners whose property borders those public beaches that exist in the State of Texas. The wording that is used "a free and unrestricted right to access" is very troublesome and fails to place any benefits on the side of those individual homeowners.


Proposition 10: No

This is an effort to standardize the terms of the elected members of Emergency Services District Boards with other similar types of boards, such as hospital boards.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of ESDs (244/283) are unelected appointees of the local county commissioners court and are thus somewhat removed from the voters as it is. Currently the Texas Constitution limits the terms of all offices to 2 years, unless otherwise specified.
While it is true that this is supposed to be a non-partisan office, we should look for ways to make our elected officials accountable for their actions and lessen the opportunity for them to become deaf to our concerns.


Proposition 11: No

This is an effort to provide further protections from the abuses of eminent domain that can arise thanks to the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London (2005).
Unfortunately, the wording in the statute authorizing this Amendment is very deceptive. It was changed numerous times during the legislative session and the final version was amended to include the authorization for Amendment #4, the University funding Amendment. Needless to say that's very shaky ground to begin with, especially when the original wording was much stronger before all the adjustments occurred.
Secondly, this authorizes the legislature to grant eminent domain authority to any undefined "entity" it wishes with a simple 2/3rds vote and we don't believe that that's a high enough hurdle! They've already granted eminent domain authority to some utilities and hospitals, do we really want that to continue with just a simple 2/3rds vote? I'd rather this one go back to the drawing board and be written up with some real teeth to it and if that's too difficult, too bad.
Finally, the appearance of this bill is as though the legislature simply wanted to pass some kind of eminent domain restrictions and if we the people vote it down, they can say it's our fault. Well, we've had enough of legislatures not doing the job that we the people sent them to do and then expecting us to live with the results. This should not only be voted down, but those legislators who openly and actively supported it should have to account for why the bill was weakened repeatedly throughout the session and why they haven't enacted tougher restrictions already. It's only our fault that they don't do their jobs, if we don't vote them out when we have the opportunity.