What's Up With Proposition 15?

We’re getting both praise and pushback for our position on amendment #15, the Parental Rights amendment, on the ballot for the Nov 4 election. (as we knew we would).  Today’s Friday Message is an attempt to clarify our position, and elaborate on the reasons for it. 

The opposition is two-fold:  (1) Parents have the right, from God, to direction their children’s upbringing, so it is unnecessary to put it in the constitution; and (2) The language of the resolution is too vague to actually protect parents’ rights anyway.

The ballot language states:

Proposition 15 - SJR 34  "The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children."

THE AMENDMENT IS UNNECESSARY:

Because of our opposition to this amendment, we’ve been accused of not believing that parents have the right to make decisions for their children, which, of course, is patently false.  One of TTP’s core values is Personal Responsibility, which would include one’s responsibility for one’s children.  Quite the opposite is true in fact.  We believe that God grants us the right to direct the upbringing and care of our children, and it doesn’t need to be stated by the government.  When we insert something like this into the constitution, it seems to declare that the government is granting this right, and therefore could take it away.   Responsibility for raising children is a right given by God, not the government.

In 2021, for the same reasons, we also opposed an amendment that said the Government could not close churches.  Of course, government does not have the right to tell anyone when and where to worship!  If churches closed, it’s because they chose to close.  We didn't need the state constitution to say so.

VAGUE LANGUAGE

It’s also important to consider the language of the legislation behind this amendment.  The ballot language is just what you will see on the ballot when you vote.  The language of the actual legislation is vague and concerning.  SJR34 states:

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1.AAArticle I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 37 to read as follows:

Sec.A37.AATo enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation ’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent ’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent ’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child ’s upbringing

There's nothing in this language that says the government will NOT interfere with parents’ rights, (similar to the US 2nd Amendment - right to bear arms shall not be infringed, or the first amendment which starts out “Congress shall make no law….).  It only says they are enshrining "truths that are deeply rooted in this nation's history & traditions".  What does that even mean?  There's also nothing there about the government's responsibility in the case of child neglect and abuse.  So, will some future abusive parent use this language to defend their mistreatment or sexual abuse of their children?  Stranger things have happened!

The original Resolution had better language, in my opinion, but many people objected to it because it specifically stated that government would interfere if there was a compelling reason.  Here’s the original language of the Resolution when it came our of the Senate.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1.AAArticle I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 37 to read as follows: 

Sec.A37.AA  (a) A parent has the inherent right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent ’s child and to make decisions for the upbringing of the parent’s child. 

(b)AA The state or a political subdivision of this state shall not interfere with the rights of a parent described by Subsection (a) of this section unless the interference is:

(1)AA essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and

(2)AA narrowly tailored to accomplish that compelling governmental interest.

Notice the original language included that “shall not interfere” statement. But  many people misinterpreted the “furthering a compelling governmental interest” part as meaning the government could interfere anytime it wanted to.  So, it was changed by Rep. Jeff Leach, in a committee substitute in the House.

Putting this in the constitution is no guarantee of protection anyway.  Our inalienable, God given and constitutionally protected rights have to be defended all the time. There are no guarantees!  Ask Dr Mary Bowden how well her freedom of speech has been protected against the medical community she disagreed with.  Or Kyle Karuth and Kyle Rittenhouse how well their right to defend themselves was upheld.  When SJR34 was moving through the process, I asked Senator Hughes's staff about the Resolution.  He said that “SJR34 does not change the law.  Everything in SJR34 is already required under constitutional case law.”  So I have to ask, why add this amendment.  Is it just to make us feel good?

Supporters of Prop 15 seem to think this amendment will be the magic pixie dust that will solve every parental grievance anyone may have, or protect their rights to direct decisions about their kids.  I don’t believe it will!  When parents disagree on child decisions, they will still have to battle it out in the courts.  Parents will still have to fight with their kids’ schools when they are being indoctrinated, and families will still have to endure medical tyranny when they choose a different path. 

The truth is that putting new things into the state constitution is not a guarantee of anything.  We must fight every day to protect our God given liberties because there will always be people in government who want to take them away.  This is why we build the army!

You can read our positions on all amendments, along with our comments on why we took those positions, in our 2025 Amendments Review and Recommendations document.  Please note that we stress this document is intended to be a starting point for people to make their own decisions.  It’s ok to have a different opinion!  Even our board was not unanimous on most of these amendments.  There is a high likelihood that Prop 15, along with most of these amendments, will pass, because too many people don’t know what they are voting for.  Don’t be that person!  Make well informed decisions before you cast your votes.

One more thing….. I see a lot of people saying that they will vote no on all amendments because we should not be amending the constitution so many times.  To some degree, I agree with that statement.  But after a bit of research, I realized why so many amendments are proposed.  Some of them are just farfetched and unreasonable, but some issues require an amendment.  Example:  any of the amendments that deal with property tax changes must be done with an amendment, because the rules for property taxes were contained in Article 8 Section 1 in the original constitution.  Therefore, any changes have to be made with an amendment. Our review and recommendations document contains a link to an article that explains how the constitution was constructed, and why so many amendments are appropriate.  I encourage you to read it!

For TTP voting recommendations on the amendments and other races that will be on your ballot, please check out our elections page on the website.  There is a printable summary there for your area that you can download and share with others.  These types of elections get very low turnout, so please try to boost turnout by talking to friends and neighbors and making sure everyone votes.

Stay Engaged!

Fran Rhodes, President, True Texas Project