In odd-numbered years such as 2025, the November General Election includes for voter consideration any proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution that passed during the recently concluded legislative session.
Seventeen constitutional amendments are on the ballot this year. If a majority of voters ratify these proposals on Nov. 4, they will be added to the state constitution.
Early voting is Oct. 20-31. Over the last several editions, the Dispatch Record has offered background information on each of these amendments, along with arguments for and against, so readers can have appropriate details before they head to the polls. Source for this information: Texas Legislative Council.
The last of these propositions – numbers 13-17 – follow.
PROPOSITION 13
“The constitutional amendment to increase the amount of the exemption of residence homesteads from ad valorem taxation by a school district from $100,000 to $140,000.”
Background: This amendment increases the portion of the market value of a residence homestead that is exempt from property taxes levied by a school district. It is necessary to allow the provisions of Senate Bill 4 to go into effect.
The proposal also allows school district to receive additional state revenue to make up for any revenue they would lose as a result of the amendment.
Arguments for: Increasing the homestead property tax exemption would provide Texas homeowners with significant new tax relief, as school taxes amount to the largest share of most property owners’ tax burden.
An increase in the homestead exemption would provide broad-based tax relief to all homeowners and would be a meaningful benefit particularly to elderly homeowners on fixed incomes.
The proposed amendment would benefit the economy by encouraging home purchases and boosting the real estate market. It would help first-time homebuyers who often do not have excess money to spend on taxes in addition to other home expenses.
The state would make up any loss of local school district taxes by using general revenue.
Substantial property tax cuts for homeowners could result in lower rents to maintain market competition between owning and renting.
Arguments against: The amendment would substantially reduce the amount of revenue available for funding public services.
The state would benefit more by investing its current surplus in public services rather than by providing more tax cuts.
Providing tax relief only to homeowners could shift the tax burden onto renters and commercial property owners. The legislature should pursue a tax relief strategy that targets renters and lowerincome individuals.
An increase in the homestead exemption also would increase the number of homeowners who pay no school property taxes at all. These homeowners could be incentivized to vote for higher local tax rates and more bonds because they would not have to bear the burden of those local property tax increases.
PROPOSITION 14
“The constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund to provide money for research on and prevention and treatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders in this state, and transferring to that fund $3 billion from state general revenue.”
Background: This proposition would create the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund, which would award grants to institutions of learning, advanced medical research facilities, and public or private collaboratives to fund research into the causes of, prevention of, treatment and rehabilitation for dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and related disorders. A governing body would have appointed members who serve six-year terms.
Arguments for: Creating the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas would allow for a major investment in research focused on the prevention and treatment of various degenerative neurological disorders, improving the health of millions of Texans and benefiting the state’s economy.
Dementia is a leading cause of death in the U.S., and Texas ranks high among states in Alzheimer’s cases. Lack of neurological care is especially acute in some regions of Texas.
DPRIT would help attract top research talent to Texas, create high-quality jobs and facilitate collaboration among medical and scientific experts. It could facilitate research that might not be pursued by private entities alone because they are not especially profitable.
By advancing efforts to mitigate the causes and effects of dementia, DPRIT could help relieve caregiving costs for Texas families.
Arguments against: The proposed amendment would create an open-ended, long-term financial risk for taxpayers outside the proper scope of government. There are other appropriate priorities for public funds.
Private industry, nonprofits and universities are capable of addressing dementia research and treatment without government involvement in research.
The amendment would create a new state bureaucracy without sufficient accountability measures. Modeled after the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, which has had problems with a lack of accountability in the use of public money, DPRIT could be even more problematic because dementia research is broader and more ambiguous in scope.
DPRIT would involve more bureaucratic layers and political appointees, which could increase potential favoritism in matters such as awarding grants or hiring staff.
PROPOSITION 15
“The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children.”
Background: The proposed amendment would provide an express constitutional guarantee of the generally recognized rights and responsibilities of parents to exercise care, custody and control of their children. Currently, those rights are considered in decisions made by the courts, however court decisions change over time. The amendment provides explicit constitutional protection for fundamental parental rights.
Arguments for: Enshrining in the Texas Constitution the right of a parent to exercise care, custody and control of his or her children would provide a clear legal foundation to protect parental rights.
Protecting the rights of parents helps them meet their obligations to care for, nurture and educate their children.
Arguments against: The proposed amendment does not do enough to protect children’s rights.
PROPOSITION 16
“The constitutional amendment clarifying that a voter must be a United States citizen.”
Background: Section 1, Article VI of the Texas Constitution expressly prohibits certain classes of people from voting in the state: those under age 18, those determined to be mentally incompetent and those convicted of felonies. It does not include a prohibition against voting by noncitizens of the United States.
The proposition would amend Section 1 by adding people who are not citizens of the United States to the list of those prohibited from voting in Texas.
Arguments for: Codifying this requirement in the Texas Constitution that one must be a U.S. citizen to vote would serve to improve voter confidence, eliminate confusion and provide clear guidance for enforcement of the Election Code.
The right to vote is a sacred liberty that servicemen and servicewomen, minority communities and naturalized immigrants have worked hard to secure. The amendment would provide important additional protection of this right.
As some cities in other states have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections, this measure safeguards Texas against this trend.
Arguments against: The amendment is unnecessary because laws already limit the right to vote to American citizens. Improper voting by noncitizens is rare, and passing a redundant constitutional amendment could confuse voters.
The amendment could lead to uncertainty among certain voters about their voting status and could inhibit some eligible people from participation in the democratic process.
Amendments to the state constitution should be reserved for limited, necessary uses.
PROPOSITION 17
“The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the amount of the market value of real property located in a county that borders the United Mexican States that arises from the installation or construction on the property of border security infrastructure and related improvements.”
Background: The amendment would entitle an owner of real property in a county that borders Mexico to an exemption from taxation of the portion of the appraised value that arises from the installation of border security infrastructure. To qualify for the exemption, the infrastructure must be installed on the property as part of a border security agreement with the state or federal government.
Arguments for: As part of state and federal initiatives to stop illegal border crossings, walls, roads and surveillance systems have been built to enhance security and enforcement. These projects should not place an unexpected and unfair tax burden on Texans who own the land on which the infrastructure is built. The amendment ensures that any increase in a property’s appraised value due to the border security infrastructure will not result in higher taxes.
The tax exemption would not reduce the appraised value of the existing property.
The amendment would incentivize property owners to volunteer their property for border security enhancements.
The proposal would not require a property owner to install border security infrastructure, and it would apply only to property in counties along the Texas-Mexico border.
Arguments against: The state should not provide tax exemptions that incentivize infrastructure construction on private land, especially the construction of walls or installation of surveillance equipment.
This proposal would shift the tax burden onto other property owners.
The Texas Legislature should focus on providing broad-based tax relief rather than carving out certain limited exemptions.
Local governments might have to adopt higher tax rates to offset the potential losses that result from the exemption.
