In odd-numbered years, Texans go to the polls in November to consider passage or rejection of proposed state constitutional amendments that passed during the most recent legislative session.
Eight proposed amendments will go before Texas voters on Nov. 2. The early voting period is Oct. 18-29.
Background information, with some arguments for and against, is provided below for Propositions 1-4. Analysis of Propositions 5-8 is scheduled to follow in the next edition.
The source for this nonpartisan information is the Texas Legislative Council.
PROPOSITION 1
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the professional sports team charitable foundations of organizations sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association or the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association to conduct charitable raffles at rodeo venues.”
Background: This proposed amendment would expand the events for which a charitable raffle is allowed.
In 1989, the Texas Constitution was amended to allow qualified religious societies, volunteer fire departments, volunteer emergency medical services and nonprofit organizations to conduct charitable raffles.
Another amendment in 2015 permitted a professional sports team charitable foundation to conduct charitable raffles at the team’s home venue.
This 2021 amendment would add the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association and the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association to the definition of “professional sports team” to allow charitable raffles at rodeo venues.
Supporters say: State law already allows charitable raffles at many professional sports events, such as NASCAR races, PGA events, and professional baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer and football games. Charitable raffles also should be permitted at professional rodeo events.
Opponents say: Rather than crafting an amendment around a specialized group that can hold charitable raffles, the Texas Legislature should encourage selffocused giving. Nothing prevents rodeo foundations or any other foundations from raising money for charitable endeavors in which they are interested.
PROPOSITION 2
“The constitutional amendment authorizing a county to finance the development or redevelopment of transportation or infrastructure in unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted areas in the county.”
Background: The Texas Constitution states that taxation shall be equal and uniform. A political subdivision may not dedicate a portion of its tax revenue from certain properties to benefit those properties – unless an exception is permitted.
In 1981, the constitution was amended to allow “tax increment financing,” whereby a municipality finances improvement of a specified “reinvestment zone” using ad valorem taxes collected in the zone attributable to increased property values. These “tax increment” funds typically are used to repay bonds issued to pay for improvements in the zone.
The proposed amendment would extend to counties the authority to engage in tax increment financing for projects in reinvestment zones. It would, however, prevent counties from using these funds to finance toll roads.
Supporters say: Counties need better ways of financing transportation projects, as state funding is too low to keep pace with rapid population growth. Using tax increment financing is a means to generate funding for local projects on the basis of expected property value increases without the need to impose a new tax. Counties should have access to this funding, just as municipalities do.
Opponents say: The tax increment financing proposed for counties is not limited to transportation projects but can be used for broader development purposes, further increasing the public debt owed by local governments. Once a reinvestment zone is established, financial decisions are made by an unelected board with no requirement to seek voter approval for projects.
Also, the potential range of applicable projects would significantly increase counties’ power to condemn certain property. There are insufficient controls to ensure the determination of unproductive, underdeveloped or blighted areas is made consistently.
PROPOSITION 3
“The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”
Background: When Gov. Abbott and the Texas Department of State Health Services declared a statewide public health disaster in March 2020, the governor and many cities and counties issued orders restricting business operations, social gatherings and religious services. Concerns were raised that those limitations infringed on the right to the free exercise of religion provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the right to worship provided in the Texas Constitution.
This amendment would prohibit the state or a political subdivision from issuing an order or rule that limits religious services.
Supporters say: The right to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs is enshrined in the Constitution. Allowing public officials to limit in-person religious gatherings infringes on this right.
Closing places of worship negatively affects individuals who rely on church services as a means of combating their isolation and stress. Churches and places of worship are able to make their own decisions about how best to protect their members in the event of a disaster or public health emergency.
Opponents say: Religious activity can be done safely without large public gatherings. Allowing churches to remain open during public health emergencies could place all Texans in danger.
State and local officials must balance religious freedom with public safety in other areas, such as with building safety codes that churches must follow. Officials should not be curtailed when it comes to protecting public health.
PROPOSITION 4
“The constitutional amendment changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.”
Background: The Texas Constitution establishes the requirements for a person to be eligible to serve on the Texas Supreme Court: licensed to practice law in Texas, a citizen of the United States and of Texas, at least 35, and have been a practicing lawyer and/or judge for at least 10 years. It does not specify that the 10 years of legal or judicial experience be in Texas.
The proposed amendment specifies that the person must be licensed to practice law in Texas, must be a resident of Texas at the time of election, and must be either a practicing lawyer licensed in Texas for at least 10 years or a practicing lawyer in this state and judge of a state court or county court for a combined total of at least 10 years.
If approved, these revised qualifications also will apply to a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals and a justice of a court of appeals in Texas.
In addition, the constitutional amendment would clarify that to serve as a district judge, a person must be a Texas resident and have practiced law in this state for at least eight years – or have a combined eight years as a practicing lawyer and judge of a court in Texas. The eight-year stipulation is an increase from the current four-year requirement.
Supporters say: Requiring appellate court justices and judges to have practiced law in Texas for at least 10 years would ensure they have the necessary experience with state law to serve on one of the state’s highest courts. Doubling the length of time a district judge candidate must have practiced in Texas would better ensure these individuals have sufficient legal experience to preside over important trials.
Opponents say: There is no need to revise qualifications for the judiciary. Voters can make their own choices among candidates. A person with more legal experience does not necessarily lead to being a better judge. Requiring more experience could exclude younger lawyers with more diverse backgrounds.