If the past offers any guidance to the future, few Texans will vote, and most amendments will be approved. In the 7 special elections to approve constitutional amendments since 2011, voter turnout averages 8.56 percent of registered voters. In those same special elections, Texas voters considered 53 proposed amendments and approved 49 of them (92.45 percent). 
Please consider each amendment and vote early or on election day. Below are my considerations and recommendations.
TEXAS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Constitutional Amendment Election (November 7, 2023 )
Proposition 1
Proposition 1 creates a new right for people to engage in generally accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management practices on land they own or lease. This changes the ability of the state and local governments to regulate such activities.
Proponents of Proposition 1 argue that local governments may misuse their authority to place limitations on farmers and ranchers to use the land as they desire, causing an undue burden.
Opponents of Proposition 1 argue that the legislature is amending the Constitution and the authority of the legislature to regulate land use to prevent “imminent” threats to health and public safety and create a requirement for clear and convincing evidence that the threat is “imminent.” This reduces the ability of the government to regulate and could make large, commercial farms less accountable.
Recommendation: Vote against Proposition 1. I am reluctant to add rights to the Texas Constitution, especially a right that appears to reduce rather than expand the rights of the community as expressed through their local or state governments and are meant to protect the public health, welfare, and safety of its residents.
Proposition 2
Proposition 2 authorizes 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. The Texas Constitution requires property taxes to be equal and uniform and to be based on their value unless an exemption is allowed or required by the Texas Constitution. This amendment allows counties and municipalities to exempt child-care facilities from property taxes.
The enabling legislation amends Subchapter B, Chapter 11, Tax Code, by adding Section 11.36, which governs the exemption authorized by the proposed amendment. There are safeguards in Section 11.36 by defining “child-care facility” and providing that the child-care facility must serve children who could not participate without this program. It also ensures that the operators of child-care facilities that rent their facility receive the benefit of the tax reduction rather than the owner of the rented facility.
Proponents of Proposition 2 argue that as child-care facilities become more expensive to operate and with many closing, the legislature should allow local taxing authorities to exempt a portion of property taxes for child-care facilities.
Opponents of Proposition 2 offered no opposition to the amendment.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 2. A reduction in the cost of childcare is needed by most working parents. Providing a tax break for child-care facilities is one way to incentivize lower costs and increase the number of child-care facilities.
Proposition 3
Proposition 3 prohibits the legislature from imposing a tax on the wealth or net worth of individuals or families. Because Article VIII, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, requires or authorizes, under certain circumstances, the taxation of both tangible and intangible property, a tax on an individual’s or family’s wealth or net worth, such as a property tax on an individual’s stock holdings or bank accounts, is not strictly prohibited by the Texas Constitution, this amendment is necessary to ensure that these taxes are prohibited. By adding Section 25, this amendment prohibits the imposition of a tax on the wealth or net worth of individuals or families, including a tax based on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or family.
Proponents of Proposition 3 argue that the amendment is necessary to ensure that Texans know they will not be penalized for creating wealth. Also, wealth taxes discourage economic innovation and can stagnate the economy.
Opponents of Proposition 3 maintain that Texas does not tax wealth currently and is unlikely to do so in the future. Furthermore, the amendment prevents the legislature from adopting a wealth tax, even if supported by a majority of Texans. The amendment unnecessarily limits future legislatures’ options in addressing the needs of the state.
Recommendation: Vote against Proposition 3. The Texas Constitution prohibits an income tax. Don’t restrict future legislatures’ ability to fund programs with contemporary fears of possible, but unlikely, taxation.
Proposition 4.
Proposition 4 authorizes several actions related to homestead exemptions by school districts, limits on the maximum appraised value of real property other than a residential homestead, adjusting the limitation of school district taxes on residential homesteads for the elderly or disabled, and exempting tax relief from the limitation on the rate of growth of appropriations.
Proponents of Proposition 4 argue that the legislature should use a portion of the state’s historic budget surplus ($32.7 billion) to return to taxpayers by cutting some taxes. The legislature could raise the homestead exemption and reduce taxes on residences that are not homesteads and commercial rental properties. Property tax relief for small businesses and landlords will stabilize businesses.
Opponents of Proposition 4 maintain that, if the amendment passes, the tax burden may shift from homeowners to business owners, that the tax rate compression is only temporary, and that future funding for education is placed in jeopardy.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 4. Some of the budget surplus should go to homesteaders and businesses, who created the surplus and need tax relief. The proposition could have been better, but the legislature did not provide an alternative amendment.
Proposition 5
Proposition 5 amends Section 20, Article VII, Texas Constitution, to rename the National Research University fund as the Texas University Fund, remove the provision stating that a state university that becomes eligible to receive money from the fund in a state fiscal biennium remains permanently eligible to receive money from the fund, and expand the state universities that are ineligible to receive money from the fund to include any state university that is entitled to participate in funding from the available university fund under Section 18, Article VII, Texas Constitution.
Only certain component institutions of The University of Texas System or The Texas A&M University System are entitled to participate in funding from the available university fund. The proposed amendment further provides that, for purposes of determining whether the rate of growth of appropriations from state tax revenues not dedicated by the Texas Constitution for a state fiscal biennium has exceeded the constitutional spending limit, money in the Texas University Fund is dedicated by the Texas Constitution and an appropriation of state tax revenues to deposit money to the credit of the fund is treated as if it were an appropriation of revenues dedicated by the Texas Constitution, which has the effect of eliminating appropriations to the new fund from the spending limit.
The proposed amendment additionally provides for a dedicated revenue source for the Texas University Fund from the interest income, dividends, and investment earnings attributable to the state economic stabilization fund established under Section 49-g, Article III, Texas Constitution, also known as the “rainy day” fund. Under that provision of the proposed amendment, for each state fiscal year, a certain amount of the interest income, dividends, and investment earnings attributable to the economic stabilization fund for the preceding state fiscal year is appropriated to the comptroller of public accounts for immediate deposit to the Texas University Fund. The amount of the appropriation is limited to $100 million for the state fiscal year beginning September 1, 2023, and that limit is adjusted for each subsequent state fiscal year for inflation, if any, as determined by the comptroller based on changes in the national consumer price index and not to exceed two percent per state fiscal year.
Proponents of Proposition 5 argue that this amendment provides a stable source of income for high-level research at Texas universities, which enhances the universities’ ability to attract and retain faculty and students.
Opponents of Proposition 5 expressed concern about the use of money from the economic stabilization fund to fund higher education since that was not the purpose of the fund.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 5. If more Texas universities are to reach elite status, then additional funding is needed. This amendment provides a method to increase funding, though to a limited number of universities.
Proposition 6
Proposition 6 creates the Texas Water Fund as a special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund to be administered by the Texas Water Development Board. The resolution authorizes the administrator of the fund to use the fund only to transfer money to other funds or accounts administered by the board. The resolution also provides that money transferred from the fund to another fund or account may be spent as provided by general law or may be restored to the Texas water fund without further appropriation.
Proponents of Proposition 6 argue that Texas, with a growing population and aging infrastructure, needs a significant investment in correcting existing problems and meeting future demands for water.
Opponents of Proposition 6 maintain that the Texas Water Development Board should address the state’s water needs without new programs.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 6. The future of Texas is dependent on the availability of potable water. This fund is needed now.
Proposition 7
Proposition 7 provides for the creation of the Texas Energy Fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities. Pending approval of this amendment, the 88th Texas Legislature provided initial funding of $5 billion and enacted legislation to begin providing loans and grants from the fund. The Public Utility Commission of Texas will administer the fund as provided by general law, without further appropriation, to provide loans and grants to any entity to finance or subsidize the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities, including associated infrastructure, necessary to ensure the reliability or adequacy of the electric power grid in Texas.
Proponents of Proposition 7 argue that additional state funding is needed to increase the reliability of the state’s electric market and to ensure the reliability or adequacy of the state’s electric power grid.
Opponents of Proposition 7 maintain that a more appropriate source of funding would be the rate-payer system rather than additional state funding.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 7. The Texas grid needs additional sources of electrical generation. Creating this fund facilitates the existence of such sources, making the Texas grid more reliable.
Proposition 8
Proposition 8 creates a broadband infrastructure fund for expanding access to broadband and telecommunications services. The amendment is effective on January 1, 2024, and expires on September 1, 2035, unless extended by the legislature. Pending approval of this amendment, the 88th Texas Legislature appropriated $1.5 billion to the new fund.
Proponents of Proposition 8 argue that the fund would provide resources to close the digital divide in Texas, allowing more Texans to access educational and health care services. The fund would also allow Texas to take funds from the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program.
Opponents of Proposition 8 maintain that Texas has previously allocated $600 million for broadband purposes and is likely to receive billions of dollars from the federal BEAD program. The creation of a state fund for that purpose is unnecessary and excessive.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 8.
The broadband gap in Texas deserves attention, and this fund will help narrow the broadband access gap.
Proposition 9
Proposition 9 amends the Texas Constitution to allow the legislature to provide a cost-of-living adjustment to annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and to appropriate funds from the general revenue fund to the comptroller of public accounts for deposit in the system’s trust fund to pay for the adjustment.
Enabling legislation specifies the annuitants who are eligible for the adjustment and the amount and timing of the adjustment. A rider to the Appropriations Act appropriates $3.355 in FY 2024 from the general fund to provide the adjustment.
Proponents of Proposition 9 argue that a majority of Texas school districts do not participate in the federal social security system; thus, the TRS provides the only retirement benefit that most teachers receive. Since no cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) has been provided in 20 years, retired teachers have lost purchasing power due to a higher cost-of-living and inflation. The use of the state’s surplus revenue to provide retired teachers with a COLA is wise.
Opponents of Proposition 9 offered no reason to oppose the amendment.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 9. TRS needs to adjust the pay for retired teachers to reflect the rise in the cost of living over the past twenty years. This amendment provides an avenue for achieving some relief for Texas’ retired teachers.
Proposition 10
Proposition 10 authorizes the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation any equipment or inventory held by a manufacturer of medical or biomedical products.
The amendment modifies the Texas Constitution’s requirement that most property held by a business and used for income be subject to ad valorem taxation.
Proponents of Proposition 10 argue that the tax exemption would encourage medical manufacturers to locate in Texas, reducing the cost of vital medical supplies. The exemption would also promote innovation and advancement in medical technologies, strengthen Texas’ medical supply chain, and create jobs.
Opponents of Proposition 10 provided no reason to oppose the amendment.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 10. This amendment provides an avenue for Texas to become a leader in medical technologies.
Proposition 11
Proposition 11 would allow the legislature to add El Paso County to the list of counties in the Texas Constitution that may authorize conservation and reclamation districts to develop and finance parks and other purely recreational facilities with taxes. An identical amendment, proposed by the Texas Legislature in 2011, failed to be adopted by Texas voters in 2011.
Proponents of Proposition 11 argue that when the Texas Constitution was amended in 2003 to allow certain counties to issue bonds to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities, El Paso County was not included among the counties. This amendment addresses a need in El Paso County for more parks and open spaces to improve the quality of life of county residents.
Opponents of Proposition 11 maintain that the amendment would place additional taxes on county residents. Taxing authority for certain conservation and reclamation districts is unnecessary.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 11. This amendment not only fixes a problem with a constitution that is statutory in nature and places constitutional restrictions on counties’ authority, but it also allows the El Paso County government to address its residents' needs.
Proposition 12
Proposition 12 provides for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County.
Proponents of Proposition 12 argue that the Texas Constitution requires a county treasurer who is officed in the county seat, serves a four-year term, and is paid a salary as provided by law. The amendment also allows the Galveston County Commissioners Court to abolish the office and employ or contract with a qualified person or to designate another county officer, to perform the functions of the county treasurer. They further argue that the treasurer is unnecessary and that another person or county official can perform the position's duties more effectively, efficiently, and less expensively than the county treasurer.
Opponents of Proposition 12 argue that the elimination of the office would eliminate an important check and balance in the county government, would not save money, and could lead to a concentration of power within the county.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 12. This amendment, like the previous amendment, fixes a problem with an antiquated constitution that is badly in need of major revisions.
Proposition 13
Proposition 13 would increase the mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices. Currently, state judges and justices must retire at 75 years of age. Under the amendment, state judges and justices would not have to retire until 79 years of age.
Proponents of Proposition 13 argue that people are living longer and working longer. Consequently, the mandatory retirement age for state judges and justices should be increased. Increasing the mandatory retirement age would allow experienced public servants to serve longer, reduce turnover, and ensure a more predictable and stable judicial system.
Opponents of Proposition 13 offered no reasons to oppose the amendment.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 13. This amendment allows judges to serve longer, which is generally a good idea. Four additional years of service, if a judge desires it, is acceptable.
Proposition 14
Proposition 14 provides for the creation of the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund to create and improve state parks.
Proponents of Proposition 14 argue that the current source of funding for state parks, which includes fees and legislative appropriations, is insufficient. The creation of the fund would provide for money (1) appropriated, credited, or transferred by the legislature, (2) gifts, grants, and donations received by the Parks and Wildlife Department, and (3) investment earnings and interest earned on the money in the fund. Pending the adoption of this amendment, the 88th Texas Legislature has already appropriated $1 billion to the fund. The creation of the fund is necessary to ensure that the state’s parks can be enjoyed by Texans in the future.
Opponents of Proposition 14 offered no reasons to oppose the amendment.
Recommendation: Vote for Proposition 14. Texas state parks need additional funds for renovations and additional facilities to meet future demand for state park facilities. This amendment provides those funds.
Summary of Recommendations
Against Prop 1; For Prop 2; Against Prop 3; For Prop 4; For
Prop 5; For
Prop 6; For
Prop 7; For
Prop 8; For
Prop 9; For
Prop 10; For
Prop 11; For
Prop 12; For
Prop 13; For
Prop 14.
