Fourteen Constitutional Amendments will be on our ballots on Nov. 7th in Texas. These amendments are often worded strangely, and confusing, and have people scratching their heads wondering which way to vote. But no worries! TTP is here to help.

There are several sources you can use to find detailed information about these amendments. One is the Secretary of State’s Explanation of Constitutional Amendments This is the “official” explanation from the SOS about what the amendments mean, but no recommendations. Another good source with voting recommendations is Texans For Fiscal Responsibility. Ballotpedia offers some good background information on each amendment, and The Texas Legislative Council gives deep dive details on each amendment (the government's official analysis). And if you'd like the liberal point of view on these amendments, just consult any Texas legacy media outlets, I'm sure they will have comments.

Bill Peacock, a consultant with Huffines Liberty Foundation, Texas Scorecard, and formerly with Texas Public Policy Foundation, will be doing a presentation on the amendments as they relate to budgets and spending in several TTP Satellites during September and October . Check the website calendar for locations and dates of Bill's presentations.

I would urge everyone to take a close look at each amendment, study the available information from trusted resources, and then make an informed decision. But for now, here are my personal recommendations and personal comments about the amendments. (Apologies in advance for any snarky remarks that may or may not be contained in this review.)

Texas has constitutional limits in place for growing state spending. Budgets can only increase year over year by an amount equal to the inflation rate and population growth. However, the legislature can override those limits with a simple majority vote of both chambers. But it’s not a good look to impose spending limits on themselves and then turn around and break the limits. Voters wouldn’t like that! So instead of busting the spending limit, they took 7 items they wanted to spend money on, and made them constitutional amendments - off-budget. This way, they make the voters bust the spending limit so they don’t have to.

Of course, no one is telling you that you are busting the spending limits! You also need to know that even without busting the spending limits, the budget that was passed for this biennium is 42% higher than the last one. It’s the biggest spending increase in Texas history!

Proposition 1 – HJR 126 "The constitutional amendment protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management."

Cost to Taxpayers: According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal implications other than cost of publication.

The Author’s statement of intent for this amendment states: “Farmers and ranchers who engage in production agriculture within municipal boundaries are being subjected to broad over regulation by municipal ordinances that prohibit and greatly restrict normal practices of agricultural operations, such as the raising and keeping of livestock, the production of hay, and the cultivation of certain row crops. H.J.R. 126 seeks to address this issue and empower landowners in the state by constitutionally protecting their right to engage in certain generally accepted agricultural practices on their own property.”

The amendment does not prevent the legislature or authorized state agencies from regulating these activities for specific purposes in the future.

Vote Recommendation: NEUTRAL – I see no reason to oppose this amendment, it’s harmless, but I also don’t see why this had to be an amendment. Since when does growing food need to be constitutionally protected? If lawmakers were acting responsibly in the interest of all Texans, this would not be a problem. This is one of those amendments that seek to codify your God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness into the constitution. Just remember, "rights" granted by the government can also be taken away by the government.

Proposition 2 – SJR 64 "The constitutional amendment 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."

Cost to Taxpayers: This amendment has no fiscal implications to the state other than the cost of publication. However, it does have fiscal implications for cities and counties who adopt the exemption.

This amendment allows cities and counties to exempt appraisal values of childcare facilities from property taxes.

Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – exempting certain types of businesses from taxes puts a greater burden on the remaining taxpayers. Exemptions like this have governments picking winners and losers. Government needs to stay out of the way!

Proposition 3 – HJR 132 "The constitutional amendment 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."

Cost to Taxpayers: According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal implications other than cost of publication

This amendment will prevent the legislature from imposing wealth tax on individuals or families (like California has done).

Vote Recommendation – FOR – we would always be opposed to a wealth tax. Texans are already taxed at every level of earning and spending, and a wealth tax would be a tax on success. But this is another one of those things that has me asking "why do we need a constitutional amendment for this?"

Proposition 4 – HJR 2 from the second special session "The constitutional amendment to authorize 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."

Cost to Taxpayers According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal implications other than cost of publication. However, it does have fiscal implications for school boards.

This is the one from 2^nd special session that is called “The Biggest Tax Relief Bill in Texas History”. (it isn’t!). It contains 4 parts: (1) temporary limit on appraisal value of non-homesteaded properties; (2) increase homestead exemptions for school taxes to $100,000; (3) exempt certain appropriations to pay for tax relief from the constitutional growth limitation; and (4) authorizes the legislature to provide for a 4-year term of office for a member of the board of certain appraisal districts.

Vote Recommendation – FOR – This “giant” tax relief bill will provide very short-lived tax relief, which will quickly be eaten up by inflation, appraisal increases, and governments’ reluctance to control spending and lower tax rates. But since some tax relief is better than none, so we recommend voting FOR.

Proposition 5 – HJR 3 "The constitutional amendment 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."

Cost to Taxpayers: This amendment will cost $412 million the first year (taken from the rainy-day fund), and then about $120 million per year after that.

This proposition is one of several that establish a “fund” for some particular purpose, and keeps the spending off budget. To keep from breaking the spending limit, they’ve hidden that spending in these Constitutional Amendments, so they can tell voters they didn’t bust the spending limit.

Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – In addition to the sneaky nature of these “fund” amendments which is worth opposing, consider that we already fund higher education by billions each year, and they have become primarily leftist indoctrination meccas, so it’s a big NO for me.

Proposition 6 – SJR 75 "The constitutional amendment creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state."

This is another one of the “fund” amendments that became an amendment so they wouldn’t have to show spending in the budget.

Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – see Proposition 5 above. Plus, the state is already spending money on financing water projects and not solving the problem. This fund is socialistic and is government ownership of means of production. (Can you say "More Freedom, Less Government"?)

Proposition 7 – SJR 93 "The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities."

Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – see Proposition 5 above. This fund would incentivize construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities. It provides loans and grants to electric generating companies. We already subsidize renewable and traditional electric generation with about $6 Billion per year.

Proposition 8 – HJR 125 "The constitutional amendment creating the broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband access and assist in the financing of connectivity projects."

Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – obvious reasons, but see Proposition 5 above. Another “fund” amendment, but this one is flat out corporate welfare. Why should tax payers subsidize phone companies to expand service so the phone companies can turn around and make more money off the expanded service customers? Besides, Elon Musk is building satellites as fast as you can say “twitter is now X”, that will cover the rural areas, so phone company internet is soon going to be obsolete. We lobbied against this legislation during the session as crony capitalism and government interference in markets.

Proposition 9 – HJR 2, regular session "The constitutional amendment authorizing the 88th Legislature to provide a cost-of-living adjustment to certain annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas."

Provides a cost-of-living adjustment to the teachers who are receiving retirement benefits.

Vote Recommendation – NEUTRAL – Everyone likes teachers! It’s hard to say no to helping them cope with inflation since they have not had a raise in several years. But it will cost the state billions. So you decide. Just know that if you vote against this amendment, it means that you hate teachers.

Proposition 10 – SJR 87 "The constitutional amendment to authorize 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."

Cost to Taxpayers: This amendment will cost taxpayers $29 million in the first 2 years, then approximately $40 million annually.

Like proposition #2, this amendment grants property tax exemptions to a certain industry – medical supply equipment.

Vote Recommendation – AGAINST - exempting certain types of businesses from taxes puts a greater burden on the remaining taxpayers. Exemptions like this have governments picking winners and losers.

Proposition 11 – SJR 32 "The constitutional amendment 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."

Cost to Taxpayers: According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal impact to the state other than the cost of publication. It potentially could have a financial impact on the citizens of El Paso County in the form of higher property taxes to support bonds.

How did this end up as a constitutional amendment? It feels like a local issue. But in 2003, the constitution was amended, giving conservation & reclamation districts in certain counties the ability to issue bonds for parks and recreation. El Paso was not included, so this amendment adds El Paso County to the counties enumerated in the legislation.

Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – we generally oppose all bonds, and this amendment would provide additional capacity for El Paso County to increase taxes to fund parks and recreation facilities with new bonds. Texans are taxed enough already. Even in El Paso County!

Proposition 12 – HJR 134 "The constitutional amendment providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County."

Cost to Taxpayers: According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal impact for the State. Galveston County anticipates savings if the amendment passes.

This amendment would abolish the position of County Treasurer in Galveston County, which was requested by the current County Treasurer of Galveston County in the last campaign. In order for the amendment to pass, it needs not only a majority vote of the whole State, but also a majority vote in Galveston County.

Vote Recommendation – NEUTRAL – The current Treasurer campaigned on a promise to eliminate his position, which prompted this legislative action. Since one less government position means less government, it’s probably a good thing. So, my position is NEUTRAL, leaning towards FOR. (If I lived in Galveston County, this would be a total FOR)

Proposition 13 – HJR 107 "The constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges."

Cost to Taxpayers: Indeterminate, since we cannot know how many judges would elect to serve longer.

This amendment raises the current mandatory retirement age for State Justices and Judges from 75 to 79.

Vote Recommendation – I DON’T KNOW! – This is a hard one for me. While it’s nice to take advantage of the collective wisdom of the older judges, there is the risk of aging issues affecting the judicial system. The State could benefit from new, younger candidates, so I’ll leave this one as NEUTRAL (because I can’t make up my mind! You decide.)

Proposition 14 – SJR 74 "The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the centennial parks conservation fund to be used for the creation and improvement of state parks."

Another “fund” amendment so I’ll refer you to “fund” amendment comments above.

None of these amendments would do much, if anything, to solve problems we are facing or improve the Texas economy. They are simply corporate welfare, with a little university welfare thrown in, designed to deceive voters into thinking they are serious solutions to our problems. Also, in almost every case, the Legislature is telling us they don’t trust markets–and the people in them–to work out solutions to our problems; they will fix the problems for us. Additionally, they take all this money out from underneath the constitutional limit on spending growth. It is just a free pass for the Legislature to spend our money.

Not only are these constitutional amendments greatly flawed, but they also will take out of circulation close to $12 billion Texas could use to buy down the property tax. That would double the amount the Legislature is likely to provide this year.

PS: Something to note - on all of the amendments that have "no fiscal impact beyond cost of publication" the fiscal analysis has the cost of publication at $204,406 per amendment. Does that mean that all of these amendments pass, the total cost of publication would be $2,861,684? I don't do math 😊 but if that's right, it might be reason enough to vote AGAINST!