Closest results are on Proposition 4, which is sitting at about 60/40.

Technorati Tags 2007 Elections, Texas Constitutional Amendment

If you can’t remember where your polling place is, check this site.

On November 6, voters all across Texas will have the opportunity to go to the polls to vote on a variety of issues. First and foremost, voters across Texas will vote on 16 amendments to the Texas Constitution including Proposition 15, the much-touted amendment to fund cancer research in the state.

In addition, voters in some municipalities, most prominently Houston, will be casting votes for city officials including mayors and city council members. College districts, independent school districts, and special districts across the state will also hold elections for their members. A number of cities and school districts will also hold bond elections to fund everything from jail construction to parks and recreation and additional school facilities. Some school districts will also hold tax rate elections to authorize tax rates higher than those allowed by the tax reform plan passed by the Texas Legislature in special session back in 2006.

Texas bloggers have dedicated a considerable amount of coverage to election issues across the state, from the statewide constitutional amendment election to local issues. Much of this coverage is highlighted below.

Local Elections, Bonds, & Referendums

Charles Kuffner at Off The Kuff has exhaustive coverage of local elections in Houston from city council elections to college district elections and city bonds. There are a large number of posts, but mosts can be found in two categories, here and here.

Bill Howell in Stoutdemblog comes out for a vote Yes on the Dallas referendum on the Trinity River at River Don’t You Weep.

Texas Cloverleaf has a round up of campaign spending on the Trinity River campaign.

Grits for Breakfast has a round-up of jail-related propositions on the ballot across the state, including in Smith County (Tyler).

Bill Howell in Stoutdemblog comes out for a vote Yes on the Dallas referendum on the Trinity River at River Don’t You Weep.

North Texas Liberal explores the pros and cons of the Trinity River referendum in Dallas.

Other Key Local Election Coverage:

Homophobia Rears Its Nasty Head in Fort Worth City Council Race (Doing My Part For The Left)

Endorsements & Voter’s Guides: Statewide Amendments & Local Races

Non-partisan voter’s guides on the 16 statewide Constitutional Amendments: Texas League of Women Voters, Texas Legislative Council (full version), Texas Legislative Council (condensed version–warning, this is a .doc file), Texas House Research Organization

Newspaper Endorsements For Constitutional Amendments: Dallas Morning News, Austin American-Statesman, Waco Tribune-Herald (split editorials: here, here, here, here, here), El Paso Times (Prop. 4) Lufkin Daily News, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, San Antonio Express-News.

Bill Howell at Stoutdemblog provides links to analyses of the amendments, then compares different stands taken on them by some other bloggers and Republicans and Libertarians, then gives his own personal stands on each at Web Resources On The Endless Amendments.

Muse at Musings urges voters to vote the opposite of the Harris County Republican Party’s endorsements.

Capitol Annex has endorsements of the 16 Constitutional Amendments with detailed information behind the reasons for their picks in their four endorsement posts.

Gary at Easter Lemming News in Harris County finally has his thoughts straight on all the propositions, amendments and bonds to follow his election page.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson has Early Voting in formation for Williamson County along with several guides and couple of opinions on the amendments .

Off the Kuff gives his recommendations for the state and local bonds and propositions.

CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme points at some resources to decipher the proposed Texas constitutional amendments.

Other Notable Statewide Amendment Coverage:

Proposition 4 (Off The Kuff)

Proposition 15 Ramps Up (Off The Kuff)

A quick and dirty list of our endorsements is below. Refer to the linked posts above for the reasons behind our choices.

Prop 1: Yes

Prop 2: Yes

Prop 3: No

Prop 4: no position

Prop 5: No

Prop 6: Yes

Prop: Yes

Prop 8: Yes, with reservations

Prop 9: No

Prop 10: Yes

Prop 11: Yes

Prop 12: no position

Prop 13: No

Prop 14: no

Prop 15: Yes

Prop 16: Yes

Proposition 14

Ballot language:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “NO” Vote On Proposition 14

While this seems like a sane amendment, it is, in fact, a mechanism which would help keep one of the worst judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals serving for several more years.

Capitol Annex could support this proposition if it exempted judges presently within five years of their 75th birthday from its privileges.

Proposition 15

Ballot language:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “YES” Vote On Proposition 15

While we believe this funding is a fairly small amount of money for a tough disease, we nonetheless believe it is an important gesture and a worthy cause. We would, however, prefer to see this amendment with an accompanying amendment supporting spending on stem cell research.

Proposition 16

Ballot Language:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “YES” Vote On Proposition 16

Many areas of Texas continue to lack appropriate water and wastewater infrastructure. Failure to fund this program further would relegate many Texans to living in communities lacking basic infrastructure.

Proposition 10

Ballot language:

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

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “YES” Vote On Proposition 10

This proposition merely allows some archaic language in our state constitution to be changed to abolish obsolete positions.

Proposition 11

Ballot Language:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “YES” Vote On Proposition 11

This amendment will allow more transparency of the legislature’s actions and make votes more easily accessible, and is a long-overdue move.

Proposition 12

Ballot Language:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: Capitol Annex takes no position on Proposition 12

While more funding is necessary for transportation infrastructure, without laws addressing such things as the Trans Texas Corridor and private toll roads, not to mention the failure of TxDOT to be straightforward with the people of Texas regarding its expenditures and solvency, make this a move which voters should think about before voting.

Proposition 13

Ballot language:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “NO” Vote on Proposition 13

Making a law allowing the denial of bail in the absence of an act of violence or a threat is poor public policy, plain and simple. It also amounts to punishment of defendants through confinement before a jury has had the opportunity to render a verdict in a case.

As the proposal is specific to family violence, voters should take note that it is further poor public policy and flies against decades of penal law in Texas, which has previously placed more emphasis on the seriousness of the alleged crime rather than the status of the victim.

Proposition 5

The ballot language:

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit the voters of a municipality having a population of les 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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “No” Vote On Proposition 5.

While this sounds like a program dedicated to agricultural land use, the fact is that this amendment, which was not accompanied by any enabling legislation, is designed to assist small cities with downtown revitalization and Main Street Program funding by allowing the offering of tax abatements to owners.

While this sounds wonderful and historic preservation is always a good thing, such tax abatements amount to corporate and small business welfare. The simple reality is that not every building in a small town’s downtown revitalization zones is owned by a struggling small business or individual. Many are owned by wealthy investors, wealthy businesses, or even multi-national corporations. Either way, it amounts to a subsidy for business. Property owners who already receive one form of subsidy–the Department of Agriculture grants–should be required to pay taxes on the improvements this business subsidy provides. Otherwise, you risk teetering on the verge of a tax-shift in many small communities.

Proposition 6

The ballot language:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “Yes” vote on Proposition 6

This amendment is designed to clarify legislation passed in 2005 which exempted personal vehicles from property taxes. However, a loophole allowed some taxing entities to continue to levy against them.

Proposition 7

Language on the ballot:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “Yes” Vote On Propisition 7

This amendment is about fairness. If a government body acquires property through eminent domain and later doesn’t need it, it can go back into the hands of the original owner with no money lost, save whatever the appreciation was during the time the body held it. It also serves as encouragement to government bodies not to take more property than necessary for infrastructure projects through eminent domain.

Proposition 8

Ballot language:

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

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “YES” Vote On Proposition 8, with reservations

This amendment is in part a result of litigation styled ACORN et al v. Finance Commission of Texas, et al.

Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now (ACORN) et al. v. Finance Commission of Texas et al. While this legislation adds some much needed consumer protections to Texas’ home equity lending laws, it does not go far enough. It fails to address what charges are subject to the constitutional fee cap, whether an application may be taken orally, and fails to adequately regulate the use of preprinted checks to take out home equity line of credit advances. Further, the amendment doesn’t require lenders to provide homeowners with all of the information in their files.

Proposition 9

Here is the ballot language:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “NO” Vote On Proposition 9
While this is a marvelous gesture on the part of the state of Texas, two things will cause this to become a serious burden upon local government entities. Total exemption from ad valorem taxes on residence homesteads of vets who are totally disabled will sharply reduce revenue available to local governments and shift that burden back, ultimately, to other taxpayers or the state. In addition, with the increasing number of Iraq and Afghanistan conflict veterans who are coming home disabled, this will cause the burden to worsen and last for a not insignificant amount of time.

Without significant reform of the entire tax system in Texas, this amendment is simply not sound fiscal policy. Further, totally disabled vets are already entitled to the same tax freeze as other disabled persons and the elderly.

Proposition 1

First, let’s take a look at the language on the ballot:

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.

Essentially, this is an amendment that allows certain constitutionally dedicated funds dedicated to Angelo State University to “follow” the university as it transfers from the Texas State University System to the Texas Tech University System.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “Yes” Vote On Proposition 1.

Although we recommend a “yes” vote to ensure that funding to Angelo State is uninterrupted, we caution voters and Legislators that the continued move among state universities to ally themselves with one or more major university systems should be carefully examined. While formerly independent universities like Angelo State, Texas A&M University-Commerce, and other institutions benefit financially and politically from affiliations with major systems such as A&M, UT, UNT, and Texas Tech, we believe–in the long run–smaller schools in non-urban areas which were formerly independent institutions will suffer. As higher education funding continues to shrink and tuition continues to climb, the trend among major university systems will be to cut many degree programs from “satellite” campuses while preserving their flagship institutions. An interim study on the structure of the public higher education system in Texas is needed, and Capitol Annex urges legislators to take this step before 2009.

Proposition 2

First, the language you’ll see on the ballot:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “Yes” Vote On Proposition 2.

This constitutional amendment provides additional funding for the Hinson-Hazelwood College Student Loan Program. General obligation bonds issued under the auspice of this program, including these bonds, do not necessarily represent “debt” incurred by Texas and its taxpayers, but rather debt to be paid back by students as loan repayments. The sale of such general obligation bonds allows Texas to generate student loan funds while obtaining those funds at the lowest possible cost by using the state’s credit rating and not drawing directly upon state funds.

We do, however, caution legislators and voters that this is no quick fix for the problem of making higher education affordable in Texas. We continue to strongly support tuition re-regulation at all public institutions of higher education and further advocate a program such as that proposed by former Texas Comptroller John Sharp in 2002, which would provide that many Texas students graduating college with a “B” average and better the opportunity to attend college at no cost. Finally, the state should seriously consider a state-level law to mandate a higher minimum wage for working Texans so that families can earn more and thus save more to send their children to college.

Proposition 3

First, the text as it will be on the ballot:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: A “No” Vote On Proposition 3.

Capitol Annex has long been skeptical of the concepts of “property tax reform” and “appraisal reform” under our present tax system.

This amendment in particular is unnecessary as appraisal districts in most counties seeing rapid growth already perform annual appraisals, and the amendment has no effect on increases in these districts. Designed to protect homeowners from 20 and 30 percent increases allowable under current law, the amendment would, again, have no effect on appraisal increases because such sizable increases are highly uncommon in districts which do not appraise property every year. The amendment, in reality, would also shift tax burden on other taxpayers, including homeowners whose values are not rising rapidly.

Amendment 4

The language is as follows:

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.

Capitol Annex Recommends: Capitol Annex Takes No Position On Proposition 4.

Many of the causes for which Proposition 4 will but the state into debt for are, indeed, worthy causes: courthouse renovation, mental health facility renovation, and other general infrastructure. However, this proposition would also result in increased funding for prison spending. This, we believe, is not a worthy use of taxpayer dollars. Not only are Texas’ existing prisons poorly managed, but, before building more prison beds to be filled by “hanging judges,” serious reform of the probation and parole systems in this state must be undertaken. Further, as many prison beds are filled with non-violent drug offenders, the state should take more steps to fund rehabilitative care as opposed to simple incarceration for narcotics offenders.

If most predictions pan out, voters will head to the polls Nov. 6 and agree for Texas to go $3 billion in debt to fight cancer.

After all, as bipartisan backers and celebrity supporters of Proposition 15 note, everyone knows someone who has battled cancer or lost a life to the state’s No. 2 killer.

Yet low voter numbers, not uncommon for elections on constitutional amendments, could turn those predictions on their head, said one political strategist.

To be sure, Proposition 15 is not without its flaws, as noted by the analysis of the amendment from the House Research Organization:

The National Cancer Institute spent about $4.7 billion on cancer research in 2006 alone, and this scale of annual investment – one that comparatively would dwarf the commitment in Proposition 15 – has not led to a cure. Texans should not expect that localized expenditures would fare better.

Certainly, the group of voters who consistently oppose the state going into debt for anything will vote against this amendment–that’s a given.

However, in the absence of any organized opposition to the proposition, this is such a “warm fuzzy” I don’t really see it failing, low turnout or not.

For one thing, there is almost zero chance any “organized opposition” will actually develop in regard to Prop 15. After all, who would be dumb enough to run a PR campaign that would be automatically perceived by the public as a campaign against a cure for cancer.

Without organized opposition, it seems unlikely to fail. However, one strategist disagrees with that assessment:

“The opposition is really voter apathy,” said political strategist Bryan Epstein, a consultant for Texans to Cure Cancer, the leading political action committee pushing passage of the measure.

“Proposition 15 safely passes if the turnout is over 1 million,” Epstein said last week. “It becomes more challenging if the turnout is less than a million.”

The only thing about this assessment, in my opinion, is that it goes for all of the propositions/amendments, not just Prop 15. Everything has less of a chance of passage with low voter turnout because, quite simply, these elections can be a crap shoot. Some people who aren’t educated about the propositions go and vote a full “yes” slate or a full “no” slate. Some voters skip propositions they don’t understand. Some voters go in and vote “no” on all propositions on general principle.

Still, with all of the celebrity buzz around Prop 15, I just don’t see it not passing.

Well, turns out that the idea wasn’t original to the Governor, but rather to a former statewide Democratic officeholder:

But the initial idea — or at least its precursor — came almost a decade ago in a duck blind, according to former state Comptroller John Sharp. He said he, former Travis County Democratic Party Chairman Ken Wendler and John Mendelsohn, president of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, were on a hunting trip in Port Lavaca when Sharp was running for lieutenant governor in 1998. The men talked about starting a cancer research project after Sharp was in office, Sharp said.

But Sharp lost the race — to Perry — and the cancer project didn’t progress.

Fast forward eight years. Last Fourth of July, Mendelsohn joined Wendler and Wendler’s partner, Cathy Bonner, who served in Gov. Ann Richards’ Cabinet, at a summer retreat in New York. At the time, Bonner said, Richards was being treated for esophageal cancer, and her health weighed heavily on Bonner’s mind.

The group revisited the idea of a cancer research project for Texas. Later, Sharp and Bonner founded killcancer.org to push the plan. and Bonner reached out to Armstrong. “The rest,” Sharp said, “is history.”

So, the real credit here belongs to a Democrat. Interesting.

This, of course, is a bit of a bizarre thing, because the proposal approved by the Lege calls for $3 billion in voter-approved bonds. Of course, had we not spent the vast majority of the surplus buying down property tax rates, perhaps the initiative could have been properly funded without a constitutional amendment.

Alas, alas, alas.