Voters tend to pay more attention to elections where critical positions are on the ballot, such as president, senator or governor.

Constitutional amendment elections can focus on important issues that require voters' attention, too -- such as eminent domain, or the ability of the government to take private property for public use. Limits to the right of eminent domain are one of the primary changes proposed to the Texas Constitution in the upcoming election.

With early voting scheduled to begin Monday for the Nov. 3 Constitutional Amendments Special Election, the following text and analyses of the 11 amendments to be considered for balloting are provided to help inform citizens.

Arguments for and against the propositions are based on comments submitted during the legislative process that placed these measures on the ballot. Source: Texas Legislative Council.

PROPOSITION 1

"The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation."

Arguments for: Military installations must be protected from encroaching development that could restrict training and operational missions and ultimately cause a military installation to close. Acquiring buffer areas also would facilitate the construction of infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.

Arguments against: Authorizing municipalities and counties to issue bonds to build infrastructure to protect or promote the military mission could result in a higher tax burden on already distressed property owners.

PROPOSITION 2

"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead."

Arguments for: The legislative restriction on valuation resembles restrictions that already apply to agricultural and open-space land. Texas protects those types of properties from large appraisal increases. It does not similarly protect residence homesteads.

The proposed amendment would extend such protection, particularly for homeowners whose neighborhoods are in transition from residential uses to commercial development.

Arguments against: Allowing a residence homestead to be valued based solely on its residential use, rather than on the highest and best use, could reduce local government tax revenue.

PROPOSITION 3

"The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."

Summary: The Texas Constitution requires that administrative and judicial enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property originate in the county where the tax is imposed. An exception is that the legislature may provide by general law for political subdivisions with boundaries extending outside the county. The proposed amendment would instead give the legislature full discretion to prescribe the manner of the enforcement of uniform appraisal standards and procedures.

Arguments for: While the property tax system is primarily administered on the local level, the state retains an interest in property tax appraisal professionalism and competence. Property tax appraisal practices vary widely across the state. There currently is no legal basis for direct oversight of appraisal districts by the state to ensure they follow state law or apply a standard appraisal method.

Arguments against: No opposition to the proposed amendment has been identified.

PROPOSITION 4

"The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund."

Arguments for: Texas lags behind other major states in the number of nationally recognized research universities, with only two: The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University. With far more qualified applicants than it can admit to its two tier-one universities, Texas is losing thousands of its high school graduates to doctorate granting universities in other states.

The proposed amendment would make an excellent use of dormant permanent higher education funds, provide an established source of guaranteed funding for emerging research universities, and allow those universities to attract and retain top talent while generating important research in the state.

Arguments against: While the amendment's goals are laudable, at a time of limited state resources Texas should focus more of those resources, including the higher education fund, on those universities that are the closest to attaining tier-one status. It would make more sense to target fewer universities that are further along the path to national status.

PROPOSITION 5

"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations."

Arguments for: The ability to consolidate appraisal review boards would benefit rural counties that might have difficulty finding qualified appraisal review board members. Combining appraisal review boards would be allowed but not required, empowering appraisal districts to pursue whatever course best fits local needs.

Arguments against: The proposed amendment should go further to address consolidation is- sues. If the legislature and Texas voters want to encourage consolidation, they should seek both appraisal district consolidation and appraisal review board consolidation in tandem.

PROPOSITION 6

"The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."

Arguments for: Under the current constitutional provision, the board must return to the legislature and to the voters every four years to secure the needed bonding authority. The proposed amendment would allow the board to avoid having to seek new bonding authority every four years. Instead, the amendment would allow the board to issue new bonds in place of those already issued, as long as the amount of outstanding bonds does not exceed the total amount authorized by the legislature. Voters have never declined to approve such measures in any previous election and, to date, have OK'd $4 billion in these types of bonds, about $2 billion of which already has been issued and later retired or redeemed.

Arguments against: No apparent opposition to the amendment has been registered.

PROPOSITION 7

"The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices."

Arguments for: The practice of holding more than one office for which a person receives compensation is known as dual office holding. Current exceptions to the dual office holding prohibition allow a civil official to also hold office in most branches of the military, including the National Guard. The Texas State Guard and other Texas military forces were not in existence or were overlooked when these exceptions were added.

Arguments against: No appar- ent opposition has been raised to the amendment.

PROPOSITION 8

"The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state."

Arguments for: Texas ranks third in the nation in the number of veterans among its residents. The state has nine inpatient veterans hospitals, but the rising cost to travel to these facilities can impede or delay necessary health care for some veterans. The amendment would encourage the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to partner with the state and local communities to establish additional such facilities.

Arguments against: While there has been no specific opposition, some observers have questioned whether a constitutional amendment is the correct mechanism to achieve the desired result.

PROPOSITION 9

"The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico."

Arguments for: For 50 years, the Texas open beaches act has served as one of the strongest coastal access laws in the nation. The proposed amendment would strengthen that law by clarifying its intent to protect the public's right to free and unrestricted access to public beaches. Property owners who build or purchase homes on Texas beaches do so with full knowledge of the risks to their property that storms and rising sea levels may cause the line of vegetation to shift, thus causing the property to be located on a public beach.

The open beaches act recognizes a "rolling" beachfront easement and authorizes the state to enforce the easement as natural changes occur in its location. Several recent lawsuits have challenged that law, and the proposed amendment would reduce such litigation by clarifying the law's intent to keep public beaches public.

Arguments against: Many homes along the Texas Gulf coast stood for generations on private land until Hurricane Ike's winds and storm surge moved the line of vegetation, leaving the homes on the public beach. The proposed amendment would give the state excessive authority to restrict property owners' right to enjoy their property and compound the problem for those owners by making the law more difficult to change in the future.

PROPOSITION 10

"The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."

Arguments for: The Texas Constitution limits the term for all state offices to two years unless otherwise specified. The services controlled by emergency services districts are important enough to local communities to justify longer terms for district commissioners to provide greater continuity and experience in leadership. The proposed amendment would provide emergency services district commissioners time to gain such expertise.

Furthermore, requiring commissioners to run for election and re-election every two years unnecessarily detracts from the work of the district and runs the risk of politicizing an otherwise nonpartisan office.

Arguments against: Emergency services districts have authority over critical services and broad powers, including the authority to levy taxes. The proposed amendment would weaken accountability to the public by diluting the primary means by which voters exert influence over elected officials.

Texas House of Representatives members are elected every two years, and the voting public should expect the same amount of control in selecting officials who serve in a local capacity.

PROPOSITION 11

"The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."

Arguments for: The proposed amendment would enhance the property protections established statutorily in 2005 by placing in the Texas Constitution clear restrictions on the use of eminent domain and by specifying that "public use" excludes the taking of property for the purpose of economic development.

The language would prohibit an entity from acquiring property through eminent domain with no clear plan to put the property to public use. It would not interfere with the lease of property to a third party.

The amendment would close a loophole that allows governmental entities to take well-maintained land on grounds of "blight." In addition, local governments would be unable to take large parcels of property and sell or lease them to a private developer to build new developments with the intent of increasing local tax revenues.

Additional protections should be enacted, including compensation for lost access to property, the payment of a fair-market price, and the right to repurchase land that is taken for one purpose and used for another.

Arguments against: Allowing Texas courts more time to review and further define the state's current eminent domain laws could resolve many lingering concerns about the extent of protections for property owners under the existing laws, while placing the proposed changes in the Texas Constitution would make them permanent, and any unintended effects could impede legitimate eminent domain actions that are necessary for state and local public projects.

The proposed language referring to "ownership, use, and enjoyment" of condemned property is unclear and would leave to the courts the power to determine the legitimate scope of eminent domain in Texas. Statutory law, not the constitution, is the proper forum for testing terms with uncertain implications.

In addition, that language would create ambiguity about the legitimate uses of eminent domain and could prevent local governments from entering into leases and other arrangements with third-party vendors to provide ancillary services at public facilities like airport hangars, hospitals, hotels, restaurants and parking facilities.

The proposed amendment would allow the legislature, on a twothirds vote, to grant any entity, including a private entity, the right of eminent domain. While utilities have long had this authority, the proposed amendment potentially would allow any party to obtain the authority of eminent domain and would not protect home or business owners from losing their property for a private development project.