Nov 2023 Elections – RUNOFFS

Proposition 1 – HJR 126 “The constitutional amendment protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal implications other than cost of publication.
The amendment does not prevent the legislature or authorized state agencies from regulating these activities for specific purposes in the future.
Vote Recommendation:  Against– We’ve received information from both sides of this issue and because further study is required, and the language is overly broad, we recommend voting Against.  Constitutional Amendments are too powerful to support without complete understanding of the full impact.  Our top advisors on small farms and ranches advise voting against this amendment because it will give cover to major industry taking over smaller operations.  We also referenced this article.  While we do believe the small farmers within HOAs and in small, annexed communities and such need protection, we must get it right and not create additional issues.

Proposition 2 – SJR 64 “The constitutional amendment authorizing a local option exemption from ad valorem taxation by a county or municipality of all or part of the appraised value of real property used to operate a child-care facility.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  This amendment has no fiscal implications to the state other than the cost of publication. However, it does have fiscal implications for cities and counties who adopt the exemption.
This amendment allows cities and counties to exempt appraisal values of childcare facilities from property taxes.
Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – exempting certain types of businesses from taxes puts a greater burden on the remaining taxpayers. Exemptions like this have governments picking winners and losers.

Proposition 3 – HJR 132 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual wealth or net worth tax, including a tax on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or family.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal implications other than cost of publication.
This amendment will prevent the legislature from imposing wealth tax on individuals or families.
Vote Recommendation – FOR – we would always be opposed to a wealth tax.  Texans are already taxed at every level of earning and spending, and a wealth tax would be a tax on success.

Proposition 4 – HJR 2 from the second special session “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to establish a temporary limit on the maximum appraised value of real property other than a residence homestead for ad valorem tax purposes; to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district applicable to residence homesteads from $40,000 to $100,000; to adjust the amount of the limitation on school district ad valorem taxes imposed on the residence homesteads of the elderly or disabled to reflect increases in certain exemption amounts; to except certain appropriations to pay for ad valorem tax relief from the constitutional limitation on the rate of growth of appropriations; and to authorize the legislature to provide for a four-year term of office for a member of the board of directors of certain appraisal districts.”
Cost to Taxpayers According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal implications other than cost of publication. However, it does have fiscal implications for the taxing governments.
This is the “tax relief” bill from 2^nd special session.  It contains 4 parts:  (1) temporary limit on appraisal value of non-homesteaded properties;  (2) increase homestead exemptions for school  taxes to $100,000; (3) exempt certain appropriations to pay for tax relief from the constitutional growth limitation; and (4) authorizes the legislature to provide for a 4-year term of office for a member of the board of certain appraisal districts.
Vote Recommendation – FOR – This tax relief bill will provide very little, very short-lived tax relief, which will quickly be eaten up by inflation, appraisal increases, and governments’ reluctance to control spending and lower tax rates.  But since some tax relief is better than none, we recommend voting FOR.

Proposition 5 – HJR 3 “The constitutional amendment relating to the Texas University Fund, which provides funding to certain institutions of higher education to achieve national prominence as major research universities and drive the state economy.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  This amendment will cost about $208 million the first year (taken from the rainy-day fund), and then about $100 million per year after that.
Vote Recommendation – AGAINST –This is one of the “fund” amendments to keep spending off-budget.  We already fund higher education by billions each year, and they have become primarily leftist indoctrination meccas. We recommend voting against.

Proposition 6 – SJR 75 “The constitutional amendment creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  This amendment will cost taxpayers $1 Billion.
Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – This is one of the “fund” amendments to keep spending off-budget.  The state is already spending money on financing water projects and not solving the problem.  This fund is socialistic and is government ownership of means of production.

Proposition 7 – SJR 93 “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  This amendment will cost taxpayers $5 Billion.
Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – This is one of the “fund” amendments to keep spending off-budget.  This fund would incentivize construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities.  It provides loans and grants to electric generating companies, picking winners & losers.  We already subsidize renewable and traditional electric generation with about $6 Billion per year.

Proposition 8 – HJR 125 “The constitutional amendment creating the broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband access and assist in the financing of connectivity projects.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  This amendment will cost taxpayers $1.5 Billion.
Vote Recommendation – AGAINST –This is one of the “fund” amendments to keep spending off-budget.  This amendment is corporate welfare.  We lobbied against this legislation during the session as crony capitalism and government interference in markets.

Proposition 9 – HJR 2, regular session “The constitutional amendment authorizing the 88th Legislature to provide a cost-of-living adjustment to certain annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  This amendment will cost taxpayers $3.355 Billion.

**NOTE:  The cost for this amendment was originally posted as $5 Billion.  That was a mistake.  It has been updated to $3.355 Billion.  We apologize for the error.

Provides a cost-of-living adjustment to the teachers who are receiving retirement benefits.
Vote Recommendation – NEUTRAL – Everyone likes teachers!  It’s hard to say no to helping them cope with inflation since they have not had a raise in several years.  But it will cost the state billions.

Proposition 10 – SJR 87 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation equipment or inventory held by a manufacturer of medical or biomedical products to protect the Texas healthcare network and strengthen our medical supply chain.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  This amendment will cost taxpayers $29 million in the first 2 years, then approximately $40 million annually.
Like proposition #2, this amendment grants property tax exemptions to a certain industry – medical supply equipment.
Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – exempting certain types of businesses from taxes puts a greater burden on the remaining taxpayers.  Exemptions like this have governments picking winners and losers.

Proposition 11 – SJR 32 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal impact to the state other than the cost of publication.  It potentially could have a financial impact on the citizens of El Paso County in the form of higher property taxes to support bonds.
In 2003, the constitution was amended, giving conservation & reclamation districts in certain counties the ability to issue bonds for parks and recreation.  El Paso was not included, so this amendment adds El Paso County to the counties enumerated in the legislation.
Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – we generally oppose all bonds, and this amendment would provide additional capacity for El Paso County to increase taxes to fund parks and recreation facilities with new bonds.

Proposition 12 – HJR 134 “The constitutional amendment providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  According to the TLO fiscal analysis, this amendment has no fiscal impact for the State.  Galveston County anticipates savings if the amendment passes.
This amendment would abolish the position of County Treasurer in Galveston County, which was requested by the current County Treasurer of Galveston County in the last campaign.  In order for the amendment to pass, it needs not only a majority vote of the whole State, but also a majority vote in Galveston County.
Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – The current Treasurer campaigned on a promise to eliminate his position, which prompted this legislative action.  Since one less government position means less government, we initially supported this amendment.  However, we then heard from many conservative activists in the Galveston area who said they don’t want the position to be dissolved because there will be no more accountability to the office and it will be handed to cronies.

Proposition 13 – HJR 107 “The constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  Indeterminate, since we cannot know how many judges would elect to serve longer.
This amendment raises the current mandatory retirement age for State Justices and Judges from 75 to 79.
Vote Recommendation –AGAINST– The legislation says “expiration of the term during which the incumbent reaches the age of 79 years or such earlier age, not less than 75 years”.  As a result, some judges could serve into their 80’s since the retirement is required, not when the judge turns 79, but at the expiration of the term in which he/she turns 79.  Extending this retirement age is a severe roadblock to young attorneys challenging long-term incumbent judges.

Proposition 14 – SJR 74 “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the centennial parks conservation fund to be used for the creation and improvement of state parks.”
Cost to Taxpayers:  This amendment will cost taxpayers $1 Billion.
Vote Recommendation – AGAINST – This is one of the “fund” amendments to keep spending off budget.  There are other ways to create and improve state parks.  This amendment is just an excuse to spend more money without having it show up in the budget.

From our friend, Bill Peacock, regarding the 7 “fund” amendments (establishing a “fund” for……”):
None of these amendments would do much, if anything, to solve problems we are facing or improve the Texas economy. They are simply corporate welfare, with a little university welfare thrown in, designed to deceive voters into thinking they are serious solutions to our problems. Also, in almost every case, the Legislature is telling us they don’t trust markets–and the people in them–to work out solutions to our problems; they will fix the problems for us. Additionally, they take all this money out from underneath the constitutional limit on spending growth. It is just a free pass for the Legislature to spend our money.
Not only are these constitutional amendments greatly flawed, but they also will take out of circulation close to $12 billion Texas could use to buy down the property tax. That would double the amount the Legislature is likely to provide this year.

Printable list you can share and take to the polls (this is a pdf of the jpg shown below):  Nov 2023 election handout – 2up