2007 Constitutional Amendment Election Analysis

Tomorrow, November 6, is Election Day for the 2007 Texas constitutional amendment election. Which you likely already know — Lance Armstrong's well-publicized push to pass Proposition 15 may make this one of the more visible constitutional amendment elections in recent history. But there are fifteen other propositions on that ballot, not all of them quite as clear-cut as Lance's crusade. So we here at the Blue would like to offer some of our views on the amendments being proposed.

As a preamble, I should note that many of these amendments have to do with floating bonds to pay for state projects. Many of you will be very familiar with this, but some may wonder why we need to pass a constitutional amendment for every spending bill, or perhaps even why we need to be passing sixteen amendments every couple of years. There are a number of amendment endorsement posts already out there on the Internet, but for those of you confused by those questions, I'd like to direct you to David Van Os's analysis of the constitutional amendments. David's analysis differs a bit from ours, as many endorsements by Democrats differ some from each other — there are a number of amendments this year that have quite a bit of nuanced detail to them, and where reasonable people can differ. But Van Os's has an excellent introduction to it covering why the Texas Constitution is as detailed as it is, as well as why we seem to have to pass amendments to do just about anything that requires more than a trivial amount of money. It's worth a read.

And if you'd like an endorsement-free introduction to the amendments, I wholeheartedly recommend State Representative Scott Hochberg's list of amendments, annotated with summary analysis from the House Research Organization. He also has the full analysis from the HRO linked on his site for download; alternatively, you can download an analysis from the Houston Area League of Women Voters, who also pride themselves on regularly providing nonpartisan analysis of these things.

But enough introduction: on to the amendments! Each explanation will be preceded by the actual ballot language of the proposition. And there will be a summary of recommendations at the bottom of the article.

Proposition 1: The constitutional amendment providing for the continuation of the constitutional appropriation for facilities and other capital items at Angelo State University on a change in the governance of the university.

We start off with a mostly uncontroversial amendment. Angelo State University was moved from the Texas State University System to the Texas Tech University System in the last legislature. This amendment simply reflects this change in the Constitution's text for the Higher Education Fund, which still lists it as part of the TSUS. I suppose some that opposed the original change could see this as cementing something that they don't want to see cemented, but I haven't seen much in the way of strong opposition to this. My vote is FOR this amendment.

Proposition 2: The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of $500 million in general obligation bonds to finance educational loans to students and authorizing bond enhancement agreements with respect to general obligation bonds issued for that purpose.

This amendment adds funds to a state student loan program. And in general I'm in favor of helping folks get into college that usually couldn't swing it financially, and I voted FOR this amendment. Charles Kuffner has an FAQ on Proposition 2 on his site that was put together by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, if you'd like more details on this amendment.

But keep in mind that there are some intrinsic problems to paying for what could (or perhaps should) effectively be revolving state costs with bond packages. This is less of an issue with this particular amendment, but we will be touching on that in more detail further down.

Proposition 3: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide that the maximum appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation is limited to the lesser of the most recent market value of the residence homestead as determined by the appraisal entity or 110 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of the residence homestead for the preceding tax year.

On the whole, this amendment has caused a little more of a hubbub than I would've thought. In 1997, the legislature approved a 10% appraisal cap per year so that homeowners' property tax would not spike in response to a sharp increase in property value from what was then a housing market starting to boom. This particular proposition simply closes a loophole in that increase where appraisal districts could, by only reappraising every two or three years, get by a 30%+ increase in property values.

Some seem to be concerned about the appraisal cap in the first place, arguing that such tax relief isn't really appropriate — if you have an expensive house, you have an expensive house, and should pay the appropriate tax for it. Others seem to be strongly concerned with the words, "...or a greater percentage..." in the text for the appraisal cap, which would seem to allow an arbitrarily high cap to be imposed.

What I think is missed with those two arguments is that neither of those problems is addressed by this amendment. Neither a "yes" or "no" vote would do anything to get rid of the appraisal cap, and the "...or a greater percentage" text is part of the original constitutional text on the appraisal cap, and is not something that is added by this amendment — so a "yes" vote doesn't affect its being there, and a "no" vote doesn't make it go away.

On the whole, I think this closes a loophole that certain (very few) property districts use to circumvent the original intent of ten-year-old legislation. Whether or not that legislation itself is good is the matter of a different discussion; as it stands, I instinctively dislike unintended loopholes (seeing as such loopholes never seem to work out in favor of the poor and underprivileged), and am a fan of equitable application of law. I voted FOR.

Proposition 4: The constitutional amendment authorizing the issuance of up to $1 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for maintenance, improvement, repair, and construction projects and for the purchase of needed equipment.

This amendment bundles together a number of disparate spending proposals in the name of "simplifying the ballot," as there are so many propositions on it already. It is ironic, then, that this is the amendment I have received by far the most questions on. That's probably because the text of the proposition itself says next to nothing about the use of the money being allocated.

Fortunately, Rep. Hochberg's site comes to the rescue:

The bonds would pay for the following projects:

* $233 million for 3 new prisons facilities (if authorized by the House and Senate leadership) plus $40 million to renovate existing prisons.
* $200 million for new regional Dept. of Public Safety offices, a new crime lab and crime lab expansions, and an emergency vehicle operations course;
* $25 million for repairs to the Battleship Texas and $27 million for state park repairs;
* $48 million for county historic courthouse renovations and other historic sites;
* $71 million for repair and renovation of mental health residential schools and mental health hospitals;
* $32 million for deferred maintenance and asbestos abatement at state buildings;
* $28 million for new construction at existing Texas Youth Commission facilities and to build one new facility; and
* $14 million for maintenance at various Texas National Guard facilities.

That adds up to $717.3 million, if you're wondering. So nearly thirty percent of the billion-dollar maximum is unallocated and would ostensibly go to general revenues, and nearly twenty-five percent is for new jails. Everything else is peanuts by comparison.

Anyone else get the feeling that perhaps, along with the noble cause of "simplifying the ballot," some folks out there were trying to pass a big prison development bond under our noses by trying to cover it up by using 2.5% of the bond to renovate Battleship Texas?

If that isn't enough incentive, consider that we're talking about using bonds to pay for regular maintenance costs for state institutions. Maintenance costs are recurring costs, which if we cover with a bond right now, will spring right back up to bite us well before that bond's paid off. The Lege should be dealing with all of these inevitable revolving costs in their budget appropriations. Saving surplus money for more property tax cuts in 2009 and not paying necessary (and predictable) maintenance costs strikes me as about as logical as "saving" your paycheck to buy a big-screen TV and putting your rent payment on your credit card. Remind me to thank Perry and Craddick for their solid financial management skills. How did Republicans ever get tagged "fiscally responsible," anyway?

Needless to say, I vote AGAINST.

Proposition 5: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit the voters of a municipality having a population of less than 10,000 to authorize the governing body of the municipality to enter into an agreement with an owner of real property in or adjacent to an area in the municipality that has been approved for funding under certain programs administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture under which the parties agree that all ad valorem taxes imposed on the owner’s property may not be increased for the first five tax years after the tax year in which the agreement is entered into.

That's a mouthful, isn't it? Let's try to inject a little clarity into that text: the Department of Agriculture programs the proposal refers to are the Downtown Revitalization Program and the Main Street Improvements Program. So what we're talking about is allowing cities of less than 10,000 to offer recipients of state grants for downtown renovation a further incentive by freezing their property taxes for the first five years. Hey, downtown renovation — that's a good thing, right? Well, in many small cities, it is, which is why the DoA programs exist in the first place. But the further tax freeze saps the income the city would get from downtown developments, which usually is at least to some extent part of the purpose of having a vibrant and healthy downtown.

Further, though the bill presents the proposal as a voter-driven initiative, there's no indication that the voters would actually have any say as to the details of the agreements they would be authorizing their governing bodies to enter into. They would simply be giving authorization for them to enter into such proposals in the first place — and any of us who have lived in small and fast-growing cities know that very often, the citizens don't get quite the bill of sale they were expecting when they were sold the concept in the first place. We have ways to encourage downtown development already; I don't think we need to potentially poison the well by opening the door to Wal-Mart style tax freeze arrangements in the name of further encouraging growth. My vote is AGAINST.

Proposition 6: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation one motor vehicle owned by an individual and used in the course of the owner’s occupation or profession and also for personal activities of the owner.

This was actually inspired by a law passed in the 2005 legislative session. The law allowed a vehicle that was used both for personal and business purposes to be treated as a personal vehicle for the purposes of property taxes (one doesn't have to pay taxes on a personal vehicle, but does on business vehicles.) But uptake of the law was sporadic, and the next year the Attorney General ruled that this could not actually be enforced without constitutional authorization.

The law limits the exemption to one vehicle per individual. I tried long and hard to come up with the worst-case scenario for someone abusing this tax break, but every time I weighed it against the huge numbers of self-employed that schlep themselves back and forth every day in the same personal vehicle they take their kids to soccer practice in, I just couldn't come up with a good reason to deprive them of the tax break. I voted FOR.

Proposition 7: The constitutional amendment to allow governmental entities to sell property acquired through eminent domain back to the previous owners at the price the entities paid to acquire the property.

This is, to me, another wolf in sheep's clothing. Doesn't it sound fair that if you get land taken from you by eminent domain, and then it isn't used, that you should be able to buy it back for no more than what you paid for it? Sure does — kind of. This amendment would allow, not mandate, the government to sell it back, and the amount of time that the government gets to do something with that land is ten years.

Now, call me crazy, but if the "little guy" that gets their home taken gets a payoff for it and then has to do without for ten years, I tend to think they'll have found another home by then. In fact, I think just about everyone who loses their land to eminent domain would not be planning their next ten years around the government potentially not having used that land by then.

Where this would most likely be applied is for folks who hold their land as an investment. It's far too easy to picture scenarios where someone with local ties "loses" land that they had no immediate development plans for to eminent domain, and then gets to purchase it back after ten years at the original price, after the land has significantly increased in value. That's ten years that they don't have to pay property taxes or maintenance expenses on that land. That's a pretty big tax loophole, and I just don't see the benefit materializing to balance that out. I vote AGAINST.

I should note, however, that a number of people feel differently about this. For another take, see Vince's endorsements at Capitol Annex.

Proposition 8: The constitutional amendment to clarify certain provisions relating to the making of a home equity loan and use of home equity loan proceeds.

The amendment is intended to strengthen consumer protections for home loans. And it's gotten a lot of flak for being, on the whole, remarkably weak. And everyone who's given it flak for that is absolutely right. But looking at the amendment itself, it's fairly harmless in its toothlessness, and does help in some small degree. I vote FOR.

Proposition 9: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt all or part of the residence homesteads of certain totally disabled veterans from ad valorem taxation and authorizing a change in the manner of determining the amount of the existing exemption from ad valorem taxation to which a disabled veteran is entitled.

That's one big tax break. And it could be a serious chunk out of the budget, as some have noted, considering the drastic increase in wounded coming back from modern wars in general and Iraq specifically. Some have pointed to possible abuses from "fully disabled" veterans who are only "fully disabled" by a formal Armed Forces definition which we get no voting power over, and who are still capable of working; others have pointed out the possibility of using fully disabled veterans as a convoluted tax loophole.

Sorry, I'm a softie. For every one of those exceptions, how many people are going to come home from fighting at the request of their country with their lives destroyed? I think liberal values (no, I'm not afraid of the word) are defined in large part by the desire to help those who can't help themselves. And I can't imagine a clearer case of that than this. The arguments against sound too much like the "welfare queen" arguments that killed off a benefits system in which over 90% of enrollees were in legitimate need. We don't do that. I vote FOR.

Proposition 10: The constitutional amendment to abolish the constitutional authority for the office of inspector of hides and animals.

You won't find an easier decision than this one. The office is effectively defunct. Not one of the 254 counties in Texas actually has anyone occupying the office. And it has no purpose, as all its responsibilities have been given to other agencies. This is simply constitutional cleanup. I vote FOR.

Proposition 11: The constitutional amendment to require that a record vote be taken by a house of the legislature on final passage of any bill, other than certain local bills, of a resolution proposing or ratifying a constitutional amendment, or of any other nonceremonial resolution, and to provide for public access on the Internet to those record votes.

The only reason this isn't the easiest decision on the ballot is because of Prop 10 above. But it is far, far more important. In an ideal world, we'd also have a proposition to record second-hearing votes, where most of the political wrangling actually takes place. But this is a significant first step toward greater transparency and accountability in the Lege. I emphatically vote FOR.

Proposition 12: The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds by the Texas Transportation Commission in an amount not to exceed $5 billion to provide funding for highway improvement projects.

What's a constitutonal amendment election without a pariah? Prop 12 has to be the most hated amendment on the ballot in the eyes of Democrats across the state. And for good reason: the Texas Transportation Commission has not exactly proven itself to be a friend of the average Texan. (If you really need the back-story — seriously, you haven't heard about the Trans-Texas Corridor debacle? — you should check out the information on CorridorWatch.)

Ironically, I went back and forth on this amendment. I understood the ire held toward the TTC, but it seemed to me illogical to deny funding to an agency whose major argument is that it has to approve all those toll roads we love to hate because they don't have the money to build otherwise. Obviously, money can't be thrown at the problem blindly — some serious oversight of the agency is called for — but denying them funds would seem like a tacit justification of their toll road policy, and I'm against that even more than I'm against TTC cronyism.

But, in the end, I vote AGAINST. Why? Because, despite the otherwise strong argument for, they don't really need the money. How do I know? Call it a guess — a guess based on the fact that we authorized a $3 billion bond for the TTC that hasn't even been issued yet. Thanks to McBlogger for that key piece of info.

Proposition 13: The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a person who violates certain court orders or conditions of release in a felony or family violence case.

This is possibly the hardest call on the ballot. On one side, you have the rights of a victim to be protected from an assailant for whom there is credible reason to believe that they will cause harm to the victim if set free. On the other side, you have the right of the accused to not be incarcerated for a crime he or she may not have committed.

First, a bit more detail on the amendment itself. The Texas Constitution currently allows a judge to deny a defendant bail in certain felony cases. The first part of this amendment would allow a judge to also deny bail if the following are all true:

• the defendant already had been granted bail once for this accused crime;
• the defendant violated a condition of that bail;
• the crime the defendant is accused of is a family violence offense; and,
• the condition of bail that the defendant violated was related to the safety of the alleged victim or the safety of the community.

It makes sense that someone granted bail who violates the conditions of that bail to harm the original victim would not be granted bail again. But in adding "the safety of the community," it would seem that the criteria could get pretty broad.

However, the second part of the amendment would also allow judges to deny bail if a defendant violated any protective order. The bail hearing would go by the “preponderance of evidence” standard, rather than the stricter “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for criminal cases. How this isn't effectively incarcerating someone without due process, I'm not sure.

If this proposition were more narrowly drawn, deciding whether or not the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused would be much more difficult. But as it stands, the amendment is overbroad and potentially criminalizes the accused without benefit of a trial. Domestic violence is a horrible thing, but it cannot justify disregarding one of our most basic rights. I vote AGAINST.

Proposition 14: The constitutional amendment permitting a justice or judge who reaches the mandatory retirement age while in office to serve the remainder of the justice’s or judge’s current term.

What's the point of a mandatory retirement age if it's not mandatory to retire when you hit that age? The premise behind mandatory retirement ages doesn't really lend itself well to "bending" the required age.

Perhaps more importantly, there is a high likelihood that this proposition is intended specifically to benefit a particular judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals that, well, isn't particularly deserving of extra time. Not that anyone particularly is — what did I say earlier about the equal application of law?

I vote AGAINST.

Proposition 15: The constitutional amendment requiring the creation of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizing the issuance of up to $3 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for research in Texas to find the causes of and cures for cancer.

Lance Armstrong's baby. If anything is going to drive up turnout in this election, it's the strong push he's made for this amendment, and the media he's gotten for it.

I've already mentioned my reservations about paying for certain things with bonds instead of through appropriations. I should note that some people think that this is one of those things that should not be paid for with bond funds. Costs on interest for bonds are significant — a problem more with the general mechanism than with this amendment in particular, which is why I don't give it as much weight as some others; as soon as I see some significant effort to change that mechanism with a snowball's chance of actually succeeding, I may change my tune. In this case, however, one can justify the costs by noting that the research would go directly towards lowering the $4 billion per year that cancer care currently costs Texans. Or that using the money for research in Texas instead of funding it federally — something that many say makes more sense for a disease that affects the entire nation — could well encourage medical research investment in the state, the tax income from which could offset the costs some as well.

But when it all comes down to it, I know I'm just looking for justifications to vote for the amendment. And I'm OK with that. I cannot name one person for whom cancer has not somehow touched their lives. In my book, whatever efforts we can put toward helping the problem are worth it. I vote FOR.

Proposition 16: The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $250 million to provide assistance to economically distressed areas.

StoutDemBlog somehow manages to fit pretty much every opinion, pro and con, that you can find on this into three sentences. I can't beat that.

Long story short, the Economically Distressed Areas program provides water and wastewater services to areas that don't have it. Most of these are colonias and similar low-income areas along the border. In an ideal world, these folks would be able to sue the daylights out of the developers that built housing without adequate water access to go with it, and the developers would have to foot the bill. But that is historically unlikely for those below the poverty line. If it were going to happen that developers were going to be held accountable for that, it would have by now. Holding out hope for an unlikely solution does nothing for the people living without adequate access to water and wastewater. The Economically Distressed Areas program does. This amendment closes part of the funding gap that EDAP needs to fill to service areas that have not been yet helped. I vote FOR.

So, in summary:

Proposition 1:
Correcting the Constitution to list Angelo State University as part of the Texas Tech system.
My vote: Yes.

Proposition 2:
Authorizing $500 million in additional state bonds for college student loans.
My vote: Yes.

Proposition 3:
Clarifying that the appraised value of a homestead for property taxes cannot increase by more than 10% in any year, even if more than a year has passed since the home was last appraised.
My vote: Yes.

Proposition 4:
Authorizing $1 billion in additional state bonds for prisons, DPS, mental health facilities and other state projects.
My vote: No.

Proposition 5:
Allowing small towns to grant tax breaks for downtown development if approved by local voters.
My vote: No.

Proposition 6:
Exempting motor vehicles used in business from property tax if they are also used for personal purposes.
My vote: Yes.

Proposition 7:
Allowing property that was sold to the government through eminent domain to be bought back by the seller at the original sales price if the government does not use the property.
My vote: No.

Proposition 8:
Changing the consumer protections for home equity loans.
My vote: Yes.

Proposition 9:
Exempting totally disabled veterans from property taxes.
My vote: Yes.

Proposition 10:
Abolishing the office of inspector of hides and animals
My vote: Yes.

Proposition 11:
Requiring how each legislator voted on the final vote on most legislative bills to be recorded and posted on the Internet
My vote: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Proposition 12:
Authorizing $5 billion in additional state bonds for highways.
My vote: No.

Proposition 13:
Allowing judges to deny bail to defendants in family violence cases who violate certain conditions of their initial release on bail.
My vote: No.

Proposition 14:
Allowing judges to serve their entire term of office even if they reach the mandatory retirement age of 75 while serving.
My vote: No.

Proposition 15:
Authorizing $3 billion in bonds for a new program to fund cancer research.
My vote: Yes.

Proposition 16:
Authorizing $250 million in additional state bonds for water and sewers in existing subdivisions that were developed with inadequate facilities.
My vote: Yes.

Of course, a number of these have good arguments on both sides, which you can find all over the press and the Internet. The most important thing (well, perhaps aside from voting for Proposition 11) is to actually go out and vote. The only way you can get your voice heard is to speak out in the first place. So find your polling location and go vote!