Nov. 7 Election Ballot to Feature Texas Constitutional Amendments

The Nov. 7 election will present voters with an opportunity to weigh in on 14 constitutional amendments. The amendments outlined below will, along with local issues, be on the ballot in counties across Texas.

Early voting runs Monday, Oct. 23, through Friday, Nov. 3. Click here to identify your polling location.

Proposition 1 – HJR 126 “The constitutional amendment protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

HJR 126 proposes a constitutional amendment to protect a person’s right to engage in generally accepted farm, ranch, timber production, horticulture, or wildlife management practices on real property that the person owns or leases. The proposed amendment would not affect the authority of the legislature to authorize the regulation of these practices by: (1) a state agency or political subdivision as necessary to protect the public health and safety from imminent danger; (2) a state agency to prevent a danger to animal health or crop production; or (3) a state agency or political subdivision to preserve or conserve the natural resources of the state under the Texas Constitution. Additionally, the proposed amendment would not affect the legislature’s authority to authorize the use or acquisition of property for a public use, including the development of natural resources under the Texas Constitution.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters1 say2:

• “As the state’s population continues to grow and the demand for food increases, it is important to prevent municipal overregulation that could threaten agricultural production.”
• “Enshrining the right to engage in activities such as farming and ranching in the Texas Constitution can help avoid some of the conflict that has been experienced when suburban expansion and development encroaches on working farmland or ranchland.”
• “Although there are currently protections for farmers and ranchers in statute, there is no guarantee that future legisla- tures will keep them.”
• “State agencies and political subdivisions would still be able to address serious concerns involving public health and safety and animal welfare.”
• “The proposed amendment officially recognizes the authority of the state or a political subdivision to regulate pro- tected activities in order to preserve or conserve the state’s natural resources.”

Opponents3 say4:

• “Limiting governments’ abilities to set reasonable standards regarding food safety, water pollution, and animal welfare would enable large, industrial factory farms to operate with less accountability, which also could undermine smaller family farms.”
• “Requiring that a threat to health and safety be ‘imminent’ before regulations may be imposed could hinder the ability of the state or local governments to regulate agricultural operations that could pose a threat to public safety during a natural disaster until the natural disaster was imminent. Additionally, requiring clear and convincing evidence that a regulation is necessary to protect public health and safety is too high a burden of proof.”
• “By using vague terminology such as ‘generally accepted practices’ and ‘wildlife management practices,’ the proposed amendment will lead to confusion or abuses by certain entities.”

1 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Boening, Russell (Self; Texas Farm Bureau); Lockridge, James (Self ); Essler, JC (Texas Poultry Federation); Gaines, Jimmy (Texas landowners Council); Gentsch, Bryan (Self; Texas Seed Trade Association); Hughes, Rob (Texas Forestry Association); Maley, Charles (Self; South Texans Property Rights Association); Morris, Joe (Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association); Morris, Joe (Self; Travis County Farm Bureau, President); Park, Joey (Texas Wildlife Association); Skrobarczyk, Ryan (Texas Nursery & Landscape Association); Winegarner, Josh (Texas Cattle Feeders Association). In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Boening, Russell, President (Self; Texas Farm Bureau), Floresville, TX; Lockridge, James, Farmer (Self ), Grapevine, TX; Cole, Celia, CEO (Feeding Texas) Austin, TX; Essler, JC, Executive Vice President (Texas Poultry Federation), Round Rock, TX; Frazier, Kyle (Texas wine and grape growers association), Austin, TX; Hightower, Trent (Texas Veterinary Medical Association), Austin, TX; Hodges, Kenneth, Legislative Consultant (Texas Corn Producers Association), McGregor, TX; Maley, Charles (Self; South Texans’ Property Rights Association), Crawford, TX Parenteau; Julia, Director of Public Policy (Texas Realtors), Austin, TX; Park, Joey (Texas Wildlife Association), Austin, TX; Streufert, Kelsey, Chief Public Affairs Officer (Texas Restaurant Association), Austin, TX.

2 All quotes cited in this paper in support of the amendments we borrowed from Texas Legislative Council, 2023.

3 In the House the following witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee: Gamez, Alex (Self; Humane Society). In the Senate the following witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee: Kelly, Bill, Director of Government Relations (Mayor’s Office, City of Houston), Houston, TX.

4 All quotes cited in this paper in opposition of the amendments we borrowed from Texas Legislative Council, 2023.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: For

True Texas Project: For

Huffines Liberty Foundation: No Position

Current Revolt: Verdict: Scam

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

SJR 64 proposes a constitutional amendment to allow the governing body of a county or municipality to exempt from property taxation all or part of the appraised value of real property used to operate a child-care facility. The proposed amendment would authorize the governing body to adopt the exemption as a percentage of the appraised value of the property, but that percentage could not be less than 50% of the appraised value of the property. The proposed amendment also would allow the legislature to define the term “child-care facility” and to establish additional eligibility requirements to receive the property tax exemption.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters5 say:

• “Inflationary costs are making it hard for child-care facilities to stay in business, and many facilities in Texas have closed in recent years. This leaves working families with fewer options for child care.”
• “The high costs associated with operating child-care facilities and the inability of facilities to provide competitive wages have resulted in a shortage of employees for many child-care facilities.”
• “High property taxes have contributed to the rising cost of child care.”
• “Providing local governments with the authority to offer a tax exemption for property used to operate an eligible child- care facility may free up resources that could be used to hire and retain staff, which would help to reduce the prevalence of childcare deserts in Texas communities. A facility’s savings from such an exemption may also be passed down to consumers, which would address child-care affordability.”

Opponents6 say:

No public opposition was recorded.

5 In the Senate the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Goforth, Patricia (Self ), Austin, TX; Griffith, Idona (Self ), Austin, TX; Guy, Linda RN,PNP (Self ), Austin, TX; Streufert, Kelsey, Chief Public Affairs Officer (Texas Restaurant Association), Austin, TX; Yanas, Christine, Vice President of Policy & Advocacy (Methodist Healthcare Ministries), San Antonio, TX. No witness list was available for the House.

6 In the Senate, no witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee. No witness list was available for the House.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Against

True Texas Project: Against

Huffines Liberty Foundation: Against

Current Revolt: Verdict: Sketchy

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

HJR 132 proposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit the legislature from imposing a tax based on the wealth or net worth of an individual or family. The proposed amendment also would prohibit the legislature from imposing a tax based on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or family.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters7 say:

• “Enshrining a ban on a wealth tax in the Texas Constitution now will ensure that a future legislature cannot impose such a tax without the consent of voters.”
• “Prohibiting the imposition of a wealth tax will help ensure that Texans know they will not be penalized for working to create wealth.”
• “Wealth taxes discourage economic innovation and investment and can lead to stagnation. Many European countries that previously imposed a wealth tax have since repealed the tax due to negative economic consequences.”

Opponents8 say:

• “The current legislature cannot anticipate how the needs of the state will change over time, so it would be better to let future legislatures decide how to address future needs. A constitutional ban means that even if a majority of people support a wealth tax in the future, a minority of legislators in either chamber could block it.”
• “This measure is unnecessary because a wealth tax has not been proposed in Texas.”

7 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Evans, Michelle (Self ); Glass, Tom (Self ). In the Senate no witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee.

8 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee: Lavine, Dick (Every Texan); Albert Donovan, Carolyn (Self ); Pena, Alejandro (Texas American Federation of Teachers). In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee: C. Joseph, Zenobia, Educator (Self ); Lavine, Dick, Fiscal Analyst (Every Texan), Austin, TX; Barsalou, Denee (Self ), Pflugerville, TX; Joseph, Zenobia Ms. (Self ) , Austin, TX; Melendrez, Eli (Self; Texas American Federation of Teachers), Austin, TX; Stewart, Susan (Self ) , Pflugerville, TX. In the House the following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment in committee: Abi Habib, Lara (Comptroller of Public Accounts). In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment in committee: Brandt, Shannon, Tax Policy Counsel (Comptroller of Public Accounts), Austin, TX.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: For

True Texas Project: For

Huffines Liberty Foundation: No Position

Current Revolt: Verdict: I guess this is ok

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

HJR 2 proposes a constitutional amendment to modify certain provisions of the Texas Constitution related to property taxes. The proposed amendment would authorize the legislature to temporarily limit the maximum appraised value of real property for property tax purposes in a tax year. The proposed amendment also would increase the mandatory homestead exemption for school district property taxation from $40,000 to $100,000. The proposed amendment would require the legislature to provide for a reduction in the amount of the limitation on school district property taxes imposed on the residence homestead of the elderly or disabled. Additionally, the amendment would exempt appropriations not dedicated by the Texas Constitution and used for property tax relief from being considered as appropriations when determining whether the rate of growth of appropriations in a biennium has exceeded the constitutional tax spending limit. The proposed amendment would further authorize the legislature to provide that members serving on an appraisal board in a county with a population of at least 75,000 serve terms not to exceed four years.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters9 say:

• “Since Texas taxpayers are responsible for the state’s historic budget surplus, the state should ensure that some of the surplus funds are returned to taxpayers. The proposed amendment will do so by helping to deliver the largest tax cut in state history.”
• “At a time in which many Texans are struggling to stay in their homes due to rapidly increasing property tax burdens, it is appropriate for the state to step in and dedicate money to help alleviate this burden.”
• “Increasing the residence homestead exemption to $100,000 will be especially beneficial to the owners of moderately priced homes—the type of homeowner in the greatest need of property tax relief.”
• “While renters do not receive direct relief from the proposed amendment, they will still benefit substantially because residential and commercial landlords are going to see their tax burden reduced and those savings will enable landlords to avoid rent increases and even reduce rents.”
• “By providing tax relief for commercial property owners, the proposed resolution could help stabilize businesses strug- gling under the weight of rising property taxes and help them to further grow and aid in the state’s overall economic expansion.”
• “The limit on the increase in the appraised value of non-homestead real property provided for in the proposed amend- ment will help small business owners stay in business and provide greater predictability to Texans who are helping to drive the state’s economy.”
• “By making some positions on an appraisal district’s board of directors elected positions in certain counties, appraisal districts in those counties will be more directly accountable to local taxpayers.”

Opponents10 say:

• “Increasing the residence homestead exemption by such a large amount could result in a shift of the tax burden from homeowners to business owners, which could result in higher prices for consumers.”
• “The proposed amendment does not go far enough since it does not put the state on a path toward eliminating prop- erty taxes entirely.”
• “Because the tax rate compression may be only temporary if state funding at the increased levels is not maintained, not much actual relief is being provided. Any property tax relief needs to be permanent.”
• “By reducing property taxes, public education funding is placed in jeopardy as other revenues made available for public schools, such as sales tax revenues, are more volatile and less predictable than property taxes.”
• “Nearly four million Texans are renters, and the proposed amendment does nothing to provide them any direct finan- cial relief.”
• “The proposed tax relief is not targeted enough to those who are struggling the most. The state’s historic budget surplus should not be funneled directly to businesses and the wealthy.”
• “Individuals running for the elected seats on an appraisal district’s board of directors may not be focused enough on the overall business of the board and instead focus too heavily on reducing property values.”

9 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Bates, Tray (Texas Realtors); Blakemore, Charlotte (Popp Hutcheson PLLC); Juergens, Seth (Texas REALTORS); Parenteau, Julia (Texas Realtors); Phenix, Billy (Texas Association of Builders); Popp, Jim (Self; Popp Hutcheson PLLC); Spilman, Annie (NFIB). In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment in committee: Rabb, Jennifer (Texas Taxpayers and Research Association); Meyer, Mike (Texas Education Agency); Murphy, Shannon (Comptroller of Public Accounts). No witness list was available for the Senate.

10 No witnesses testified or registered in opposition in the House committee.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: For

True Texas Project: For

Huffines Liberty Foundation: No Position

Current Revolt: Verdict: Mostly Scam

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

HJR 3 proposes a constitutional amendment to redesignate the national research university fund as the Texas University Fund (TUF), and to appropriate funds from the economic stabilization fund to the TUF. The proposed amendment would appropriate to the TUF an amount equal to the interest income, dividends, and investment earnings attributable to the economic stabilization fund for the preceding state fiscal year. The appropriation amount could not exceed $100 million for the state fiscal year beginning September 1, 2023, or an amount adjusted for the increase in the general price index, not to exceed two percent, in subsequent state fiscal years. The proposed amendment also would prohibit any state university that is entitled to participate in dedicated funding provided by Article VII, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution from receiving money from the TUF.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters11 say:

• “Providing a predictable and sustainable source of funding for high-quality research at universities in Texas that do not have access to the Permanent University Fund will help ensure that the future workforce needs of the state are met and that the state’s economy continues to grow.”
• “Increased investment in cutting-edge research at universities in Texas is key to the state remaining competitive with other states making similar investments.”
• “Investing in research at the state level will help attract federal and private research funding and improve the caliber of the state’s research universities. This will make it easier to recruit students and faculty.”
• “Previous legislation establishing higher education research funds has been successful in helping universities increase their research capabilities. The additional funding provided through H.J.R. 3 will allow these universities to continue their growth.”

Opponents12 say:

• “No opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment was expressed during legislative consideration of the proposal. However, a review of other sources indicates concern about the use of money from the economic stabilization fund … to fund higher education initiatives since that fund was not designed for such purposes.”

11 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Brown, Crystal (Greater Houston Partnership); Matthews, Stephanie (Texas Association of Business); Milligan, Maureen (Teaching hospitals of Texas); Rodriguez, Jennifer (North Texas Commission); Soto, Renzo (Texas 2036); Yancy, Justin (Texas Business Leadership Council). In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Austin, Glen (Greater Houston Partnership), Houston, TX; Krogman, Travis, VP State and Federal Relations (The Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce), Austin, TX; Matthews, Stephanie, EVP (Texas Association of Business), Austin, TX; Soto, Renzo, Policy advisor (Texas 2036), Austin, TX; Yancy, Justin President (Texas Business Leadership Council), Austin, TX; Zavala, Gilbert VP Education and Talent Development (Opportunity Austin), Austin, TX. In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment in the committee: Damphousse, Kelly (Texas State University); Khator, Renu (University of Houston System); Schovane, Lawrence (Texas Tech University); Smatresk, Neal (University of North Texas); Blanton, Whitney (Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company); Ion, Anca (Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Com- pany); Keller, Harrison (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board). In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment in the commit- tee: Currah, Tom Associate, Deputy Comptroller (Comptroller); Keller, Harrison, Commissioner of Higher Education (TX Higher Education Coordinating Board), Austin, TX; Reissig, Mike, CEO Texas Trust (Comptroller); Blanton, Whitney, General Counsel (Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Co.); Ion, Anca, Chief Investment Officer (Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Co.).

12 No witnesses testified or registered in opposition in the House or Senate committees.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Against

True Texas Project: Against

Huffines Liberty Foundation: Against

Current Revolt: Verdict: Suspicious

Proposition 6 – SJR 75 “The constitutional amendment creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

SJR 75 proposes a constitutional amendment to create the Texas water fund. The Texas water fund would be a special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund, administered by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) or its successor to assist in financing water projects in the state. The proposed amendment would direct the Texas water fund administrator to use the fund only to transfer money to other TWDB funds or accounts. The proposed amendment would authorize the legislature to appropriate money for deposit to the water fund to be available for permitted transfers. No further legislative appropriation would be required for the water fund administrator to transfer money from or restore money to the fund, including the transfer of money to or the restoration of money from certain designated TWDB funds and accounts. The water fund would consist of: (1) money transferred or deposited to the fund by general law; (2) other revenue that the legislature by statute dedicates for deposit to the fund; (3) investment earnings and interest earned on amounts credited to the fund; (4) money from gifts, grants, and donations to the fund; and (5) money returned from any authorized transfer. The proposed amendment would require the legislature, by general law, to provide for the manner in which money from the Texas water fund may be used. The proposed amendment also would require that at least 25% of the money initially appropriated to the Texas water fund be transferred to the New Water Supply for Texas Fund.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters13 say:

• “Texas is in need of significant financial investment in water infrastructure and water supply development to address both aging infrastructure, the failure of which causes the state to lose an estimated 136 billion gallons of water each year and often subjects Texans to boil water notices, and the need for new water supply projects to support Texas’ growing population amid perennial drought conditions that deplete existing water sources.”
• “The creation of the Texas water fund would further the state’s investment in water infrastructure and would give the Texas Water Development Board flexibility in allocating financial assistance through existing and newly created funds to address issues with existing water infrastructure and support new water supply projects across the state for years to come.”
• “Small water systems in less urban areas of the state do not have the tax base to support large water infrastructure projects, and a statewide approach is needed to ensure water resources are available to all Texans.”

Opponents14 say:

• “The Texas Water Development Board should be able to address the state’s water needs without the creation of new programs.”

13 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Ellison, Mark (Texas Desalination Association); Fowler, Perry (Self; Texas Water Infrastructure Network (TXWIN); Harward, Heather (Texas Water Supply Partners); Kirkle, Sarah (Texas Water Conservation Association); Mazur, Jeremy (Texas 2036); Woodruff, Ronnie (Brazosport Water Authority); Albright, Steven (AGC of Texas- Highways, Heavy, Utilities and Industrial Branch); Bresnen, Steve (North Harris County Regional Water Authority); Bruun, Glenna (Texas Ports Association); Carlile, Jimmy (Fasken Oil and Ranch); Chick, Craig (American Council of Engineering Companies Texas); Cuellar, Gua- dalupe (City of El Paso); Davis, Tricia (Self; Texas Royalty Council TRC); Embrey, Tammy (Invenergy Clean Water); Emerson, Jennifer (Port Houston); Finley, Trace (Seven Seas Water Group);Frazier, Kyle (Texas Desalination Association) Gammage, Sam (Dow); Garcia, Buddy (Brownsville Public Utilities Board); Glass, Tom (Self); Grande, Rebecca (Texas Association of Business); Harward, Heather (Upper Trinity Regional Water District); Hodges, Kenneth (Texas Corn Producers Association); Howe, Billy (Texas Farm Bureau); Juergens, Seth (Texas REALTORS); Kelly, David (North Texas Municipal Water District); Ludwick, Chandler (ConocoPhillips); Martinsson, Leah (Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts); McCarthy, Edmond (Self; GateHouse Water LLC); McKaughan, Mary Alice (Texas Rural Water Association); Modglin, Jason (Texas Alliance of Energy Producers); Muñoz, Ned (Texas Association of Builders); Murphy, Kaitlyn (Greater Houston Partnership); Myers, Ashley (Texas Association of Water Companies); Norman, Scott (Texas Association of Builders); Parker, Blaire (San Antonio Water System (SAWS); Paylor, Ryan (Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO); Pearson, Shea (Texas Chemical Council); Phillips, Matt (Brazos River Authority); Rubinstein, Carlos (Self; RSAH2O LLC); Skrobarczyk, Ryan (Texas Nursery & Landscape Association); Sledge, Brian (Northeast Texas Municipal Water District; Benbrook Water Authority); Sledge, Shauna Fitzsimmons (San Antinio River Authority); Solis, Eddie (Abilene Chamber of Commerce); Tredway, CJ (Texas Oil &Gas Association); Wheeler, Julie (Travis County Commissioners Court); Wier, Andrew (Self; Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund ( SAWDF)); Williams, Julie (Chevron); Wynn, Monty (Texas Municipal League); Yanas, Christine (Methodist Healthcare Ministries). In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Ellison, Mark (also providing written testimony), (Self; Texas Desalination Association), Austin, Texas, TX; Fowler, Perry, Executive Director (also providing written tes- timony) (Self; Texas Water Infrastructure Network (TXWIN)), Austin, TX; Grande, Rebecca (also providing written testimony), (Texas Association of Business), Austin, TX; Harward, Heather (Texas Water Supply Partners), Austin, TX; Kirkle, Sarah, Director of Policy & Legislative Affairs (Texas Water Conservation Association), Austin, TX; Mazur, Jeremy, Senior Policy Advisor (Texas 2036), Austin, TX; McKaughan, Mary Alice (Texas Rural Water Association), Austin, TX Nahrgang, Julie, Executive Director (Water Environment Association of Texas), Austin, TX; Wells, Hope (San Antonio Water System), San Antonio, TX; Woodruff, Ronnie, General Manager (Brazosport Water Authority), Lake Jackson, TX; Albright, Steven, Director of Government Affairs (Associated General Contractors of Texas- Highway Heavy Utility and Industrial Branch), Austin, TX; Bresnen, Steve (North Harris County Regional Water Authority), Austin, TX; Cuellar, Guadalupe Legislative Attorney (City of El Paso), El Paso, TX; Finley, Trace (Seven Seas Water Group), Driftwood, TX; Frazier, Kyle (Texas desalination association), Austin, TX; Gammage, Sam (Dow), Austin, TX; Garcia, Buddy (Self; Brownsville Public Utilities Board), Austin, TX; Hale, J.D. (Texas Association of Builders), Austin, TX; Herman, Wendy, Sr Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator (Self; The City of Corpus Christi), Corpus Christi, TX; Hodges, Kenneth, Legislative Consultant (Texas Corn Producers), McGregor, TX; Holzheauser, Craig (Texas Pacific Water Resources), Austin, TX; Howe, Billy, Associate Director Government Affairs (Texas Farm Bureau), Austin, TX; Modglin, Jason (Texas Alliance of Energy Producers), Austin, TX; Moore, Graham, Executive Director (Alliance Regional Water Authority), San Marcos, TX; Moore, Julie (Occidential Petroleum), Austin, TX; Morgan, Ashley (Port of Copus Christi), Austin, TX; Morris, Joe (Self; Texas Weather Modification Association), Austin, TX; Morris, Joe (Self; Aqua Water Supply Corporation), Austin, TX Omey, Samantha, Senior Advisor, Public & Government Affairs (ExxonMobil), Austin, TX; Oney, Tom, EVP, External Affairs (Lower Col- orado River Authority (LCRA)), Austin, TX; Paylor, Ryan, Director of Government Affairs (Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO)), Austin, TX; Phillips, Matt, Legislative and Governmental Affairs Manager (Brazos River Authority), Waco, TX; Rodriguez, Jennifer, Consultant (North Texas Commission), Austin, TX; Shaw, Doug, Vice President – TAGD (Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts), Austin, TX; Sledge, Brian, Attorney (Self; Northeast Texas Municipal Water District; Benbrook Water Authority), Austin, TX; Sledge, Shauna Fitzsimmons, Attorney (Self; San Antonio River Authority), Austin, TX; Stewart, Scott, Vice President for Legislative Affairs (American Council of Engineering Companies of Texas), Austin, TX; Tredway, CJ (Texas Oil & Gas Association), Austin, TX; Wheeler, Julie, Intergovernmental Relations (Travis County Commissioners Court), Austin, TX; Williams, Mark (Aqueduct Werks), Dallas, TX; Wynn, Monty (Texas Municipal League), Austin, TX; Yanas, Christine, Vice President of Policy & Advocacy (Methodist Healthcare Ministries), San Antonio, TX; Yancy, Justin, President (Texas Business Leadership Council), Austin, TX; Cook, Robby (Invenergy Clean Water), Austin, TX; Covington, Jenna (Self; North Texas Municipal Water District), Wylie, TX. The following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment in the House and Senate: Peyton, George, Director (Texas Water Development Board), Austin, TX; Walker, Jeff, Exec administrator (Texas water development), Austin, TX; Puig -Williams, Vanessa (EDF), Austin, TX; Trevino, Rebecca, CFO (Texas Water Development Board), Austin, TX; Wier, Andrew (Self; Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund (SAWDF)), Bastrop, TX; Benter, Tammy (Public Utility Commission); Eaves, Celia (Public Utility Commission); Ortiz, Alex (Sierra Club); Walker, Jeff (Texas water development); Walker, Jennifer (National Wildlife Federation).

14 In the House, the following witnesses testified of registered in opposition of the amendment in committee: Blankenship, Sandra (Self ). No witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in the Senate committee.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Neutral

True Texas Project: Against

Huffines Liberty Foundation: Against

Current Revolt: Verdict: Ok not bad

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

SJR 93 proposes a constitutional amendment to establish the Texas energy fund. The Texas energy fund would be a special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund, administered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) or its successor. Money in the Texas energy fund could be used, without further appropriation, only by PUC or its successor to provide loans and grants to finance or incentivize the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities necessary to ensure the reliability or adequacy of an electric power grid in the state. The proposed amendment would require PUC to allocate money from the fund for loans and grants to eligible projects for electric generating facilities that serve as backup power sources and in each region of the state that is part of an electric power grid in proportion to that region’s load share. The Texas energy fund would consist of: (1) money credited, appropriated, or transferred to the fund by or as authorized by the legislature; (2) revenue that the legislature dedicates for deposit to the fund; (3) the returns received from the investment of the money in the fund; and (4) gifts, grants, and donations contributed to the fund.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters15 say:

• “Additional state funding is needed to increase the reliability of the state’s electric market, particularly with regard to dispatchable generation.”
• “Creating the Texas energy fund would enable the Public Utility Commission of Texas to provide loans and grants to finance or incentivize the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities, including associated infrastructure, necessary to ensure the reliability or adequacy of the state’s electric power grid.”

Opponents16 say:

• “Providing funding to increase the reliability of the Texas grid would be more appropriate through the rate payer sys- tem as opposed to providing state subsidies funded by all taxpayers.”

15 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in favor of the amendment in committee: Beatty, Jasmine (Self); Belsick, Michael (Self); Brown, Jay (Valero Energy Corporation); Coleman, Katie (Texas Association of Manufacturers); Ellmer, Mindy (Lyondellbasell, Olin and Tarrant Regional Water District); Flores, Ismael (Self ); Glass, Tom (Self ); Jimenez, Lucas (Self ); Landwehr, Martha (BASF Corporation); Malouff, Charlie (Texas Twister, Inc.); Mathis, James (Dow); Moore, Julie (Occidental); Murphy, Cooper (Self ); Noonan, Chris (Texas Chemical Council); Simpson, Richard (Self ); Veenstra, Mari (Self ). In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or reg- istered in favor of the amendment in committee: Brophey, Patrick (North Texas Commission), Irving, TX; Brown, Jay (Valero), Austin, TX; Burgin, Matt (ConocoPhillips), Austin, TX; Coffee, Jennifer, General Counsel (Texas Pipeline Association), Austin, TX; Coleman, Katie (Texas Association of Manufacturers), Austin, TX; Ellmer, Mindy (Ly- ondell basell), Austin, TX; Ellmer, Mindy (Olin), Austin, TX; Glass, Tom (Self; Texas Constitutional Enforcement), McDade, TX; Joyce, Shana (Texas Oil and Gas Association), Austin, TX; Landwehr, Martha, Senior Manager, Government Affairs (BASF Corporation), Austin, TX; Macksood, Greg (Ovintiv), Austin, TX; Mathis, James (Samsung), Austin, TX; Mathis, James (Dow), Austin, TX; Moore, Julie (Occidental Petroleum), Austin, TX; Noonan, Chris, Director Government Affairs (Texas Chemical Council), Austin, TX; Oswald, Bill Mr. (Self; Koch Companies), Austin, TX; Spreen, Lauren (Enterprise Products), Austin, TX; Spreen, Lauren (Targa Resources), Austin, TX.

16 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee: Barsalou, Denee (Self ); Billingsley, Anne (ONEOK, Inc); Boms, Matthew (Texas Advanced Energy Business Alliance); DiMasi, Rachel (Self); Fiduk, Kenneth (Self); Haden, Lorri (Self); Haverlah, Sandra (Texas Consumer Association); Ledesma, David (Self ); McConnell, Melissa (Self ); Robison, Andrew (Self ); Romero Walsh, Kathy (Self ); Sabo, Jason (Environment Texas); Shelley, Adrian (Public Citizen); Stewart, Susan (Self ); TAYLOR, JONELLE (Self ); Wu, Steven (Self; Woori Juntos). In the Senate no witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee. The following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment in the House and Senate committees: Barnes, Bill (NRG), Austin, TX; Gleeson, Thomas, Executive Director (Public Utility Commission of Texas), Austin, TX; Ogelman, Kenan (ERCOT), Austin, TX; Reed, Cyrus, Conservation Director (Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter), Austin, TX; Siegel, Sam, Vp Wholesale Strategy (Vistra Corp), Irving, TX; Barnes, Bill (NRG); Beit-Arie, Maya (Self ); Carter, David (Self ); Coffee, Jennifer (Texas Pipeline Association); Gleeson, Thomas (Public Utility Commission of Texas); Harvey, Julia (Texas Electric Cooperatives) Ogelman, Kenan (ERCOT); Reed, Cyrus (Lone star chapter sierra club); Yu, Joel (Grid Resilience in Texas “GRIT”).

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: For

True Texas Project: Against

Huffines Liberty Foundation: Against

Current Revolt: Verdict: Ok but getting sus

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

HJR 125 proposes a constitutional amendment to create the broadband infrastructure fund. The broadband infrastructure fund would be a special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund, administered by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller). Money from the fund could be used, without further appropriation, only for the expansion of access to and adoption of broadband and telecommunications services. The broadband infrastructure fund would consist of: (1) money transferred or deposited to the fund by the Texas Constitution, general law, or the General Appropriations Act; (2) revenue that the legislature by general law dedicates for deposit to the fund; (3) investment earnings and interest earned on money in the fund; and (4) gifts, grants, and donations to the fund. The proposed amendment would authorize the Comptroller to transfer money from the broadband infrastructure fund to another fund as provided by general law, and the state agency that administers the fund to which any money is transferred could use the money without further appropriation only for the expansion of access to and adoption of broadband and telecommunications services. The broadband infrastructure fund would expire on September 1, 2035, unless extended by adoption of a joint resolution of the legislature. Immediately before the expiration of the fund, the Comptroller would be required to transfer any unexpended and unobligated balance remaining in the broadband infrastructure fund to the general revenue fund.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters17 say:

• “Establishing a fund to support broadband expansion and infrastructure investment would provide resources to close the digital divide in Texas, which in turn could help to improve quality of life and lead to increased economic growth.”
• “Without reliable access to broadband Internet, millions of Texans are at a disadvantage in seeking employment opportunities and accessing certain educational and health care services that are increasingly going virtual.”
• “By investing state dollars in the expansion of broadband infrastructure, the state would be well positioned to draw down funds from the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, which matches state dol- lars on a four-to-one basis.”
• “A state funding source for broadband expansion will provide much-needed flexibility in achieving broadband attain- ment goals that is missing with federal programs that come with certain added constraints.”

Opponents18 say:

• “The broadband infrastructure fund should be required to prioritize projects that develop fiber optic broadband infra- structure, which may be faster, safer, and more durable and reliable than wireless broadband.”
• “Texas has previously allocated $600 million for broadband purposes, and the state is likely to receive billions of dollars from the federal BEAD program for these purposes. Creating a costly new broadband fund with state taxpayer dollars is excessive and fiscally irresponsible.”

17 In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Baum, Walt, President (Texas Cable Association), Austin, TX; Green, Kathy, Director of Advocacy (AARP Texas); Allison, Jim, Senior Counsel (County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas), Austin, TX; Avini, Mitrah, Policy Analyst (Texas 2036), Austin, TX; Brophey, Patrick (North Texas Commission), Irving, TX; Carter, Jennifer, Chief Mission Officer (Goodwill Central Texas), Austin, TX; Compton, Dorothy Ann (Self ), Austin, TX; Cruz, Velma, Vice President State Government Affairs (Comcast), Austin, TX; Foster, Wendy (Independent Bankers Assoc of Texas), Austin, TX; Haynes, Adam (Conference of Urban Counties), Austin, TX; Henning, Lori (Texas Association of Goodwills), Austin, TX; Islam, Nadia, Govt. Affairs Administrator (City of San Antonio), San Antonio, TX; Kennon, Suzi (Texas PTA), Sachse, TX; Laroche, Sebastien, Director of Policy & Advocacy (Methodist Healthcare Ministries), San Antonio, TX; Lawson, Richard (Verizon), Pflugerville, TX; Morgan, Todd (T-Mobile), Austin, TX; Parenteau, Julia, Policy Director (Texas Realtors); Patterson, Tiffany (United Ways of Texas), Austin, TX; Roach, Blake, Associate Legislative Director (Texas Farm Bureau), Austin, TX; Schmitt, Stacy, VP Economic Development (Self; Opportunity Austin), Austin, TX; Seale, Mark, Executive Director (Texas Telephone Association), Austin, TX; Tate, David (AT&T), Austin, TX; Tuccio, Nicholas, Government Affairs (Nextlink Internet), Hudson Oaks, TX; Wheeler, Julie, Intergovernmental Relations (Travis County Commissioners Court), Austin, TX; Wynn, Monty (Texas Municipal League), Austin, TX. In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment in committee: Conte, Greg, Director, Broadband Development Office (TX Comptroller of Public Accounts), Austin, TX; Cruz, David, Senior Counsel (TX Comptroller of Public Accounts), Austin, TX; Hiner, Harrison, Legislative Coordinator (Communications Workers of America), Austin, TX. In the House, no witnesses testified or registered in committee.

18 In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in opposition to the amendment in committee: Porter, Gregory C., Entrepreneur (Self; Texas For Liberty), Austin, TX.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Against

True Texas Project: Against

Huffines Liberty Foundation: Against

Current Revolt: Verdict: Scam

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

HJR 2 proposes a constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide a cost-of- living adjustment to eligible annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS). The proposed amendment also would authorize the legislature to appropriate money from the general revenue fund to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to pay the cost-of-living adjustment.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters19 say:

• “Because the vast majority of school districts in Texas do not participate in the federal social security system, the annuity from the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) is the only retirement benefit most retired teachers receive. Without having received a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in nearly 20 years, retired teachers have lost considerable purchasing power with their TRS annuity due to cost increases and high inflation.”
• “Funding a COLA for TRS retirees will provide the state’s retired teachers with much-needed relief and is a wise use of the state’s surplus revenue.”

Opponents say:

No public opposition was recorded.

19 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Amps, Emily (Texas AFL-CIO); Floyd, Beaman (Texas Association of School Administrators); Gonzalez, Dax (Texas Association of School Boards); Holleman, Will (Raise Your Hand Texas); Terry, Mark (Self; Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association). In the Senate, no witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee. In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee: Bosse, Portia (Texas State Teachers Assn). In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee: Lee, Tim, Executive Director (Texas Retired Teachers Association), Austin, TX. In the House and Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment in committee: Exter, Monty (The Association of Texas Professional Educators ATPE); Lee, Timothy (Tx ret teachers assn); Cardona, Amy (Pension Review Board); Guthrie, Brian (TRS); Melendrez, Eli (Texas American Federation of Teachers); Guthrie, Brian, Executive Director (Teacher Retirement System of Texas), Austin, TX.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Neutral

True Texas Project: Neutral

Huffines Liberty Foundation: No Position

Current Revolt: Verdict: Must be nice

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

SJR 87 proposes a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to exempt from property taxation tangible personal property held by a medical or biomedical manufacturer as a finished good or used in the manufacturing or processing of medical or biomedical products.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters20 say:

• “Despite not having a corporate or individual income tax, Texas has a high effective tax rate for medical manufacturers as compared to other states. Taxes on medical and biomedical manufacturing inventory discourage capital investment in and the expansion of this industry in Texas.”
• “Most medical and biomedical manufacturing is located abroad, and the cost to ship medical supplies to the United States increased more than 50 percent in 2021, causing Texans to pay more for vital supplies. Encouraging local manu- facturing would eliminate the added shipping costs.”
• “Inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints further contribute to the need to regionalize manufacturing.”
• “Since 2020, Texas has missed opportunities for billions of dollars in private investment for biomedical manufacturing because it lacks tax incentives that other states provide.”
• “The proposed tax exemption would encourage investment in medical and biomedical manufacturing in Texas, which in turn would promote innovation and advancement in medical technologies, strengthen Texas’ medical supply chain, and create jobs.”

Opponents say:

No public opposition was recorded.

20 In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: McKeon, William F., President & CEO Texas Medical Center (Texas Medical Center), Houston, TX; Lobsinger Bush, Danielle (Texas Healthcare and Bioscience Institute), Austin, TX; Murphy, Kaitlyn (Greater Houston Partnership), Houston, TX; Woomer, Eric (Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Austin, TX. No witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in the Senate, and there were no witnesses at all on this amendment in the House.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Against

True Texas Project: Against

Huffines Liberty Foundation: Against

Current Revolt: Verdict: Whatever

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

SJR 32 proposes a constitutional amendment to expand the authority of the legislature with regard to conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County. The Texas Constitution permits conservation and reclamation districts in certain counties across the state to issue bonds to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities but does not currently provide this authority to El Paso County. The proposed amendment would add conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to those districts currently allowed, if authorized by general law, to issue bonds supported by property taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities. The proposed amendment would not limit the powers of the legislature or of a conservation and reclamation district with respect to parks and recreational facilities as those powers currently exist.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters21 say:

• “In 2003, the Texas Constitution was amended to allow conservation and reclamation districts in certain counties to issue bonds supported by property taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities if approved by district voters, but El Paso County was not among the counties included at that time. The proposed amendment would extend this beneficial authority to conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County.”
• “The issuance of bonds to fund parks and recreational facilities in these districts in El Paso County would help to address the need for more parks and open spaces in the county and improve the quality of life for county residents. It could also make the county more competitive for Texans considering moving to El Paso.”
• “The decision to assess property taxes to support the issuance of bonds for that purpose is left to the discretion of each district and its voters. The assessment of property taxes would not be mandatory.”
• “The proposed amendment would not impair any district’s contract with the federal government regarding per-acre assessments since it does not create a mandate.”

Opponents22 say:

• “The proposed amendment would give certain conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County the unnecessary authority to assess property taxes.”
• “Under Section 55.364, Water Code, certain conservation and reclamation districts in the county have federal contracts that require that any land within the districts be assessed on a per-acre basis. These districts should be excluded from the applicability of the resolution’s property tax provisions to avoid additional tax burdens.”

21 In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Cuellar, Lupe (City of El Paso), El Paso, TX; Lary, Trey, Attorney (Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP), Austin, TX; Solis, Eddie (El Paso Water), Austin, TX.

22 In the House there were no witnesses who testified or registered in support of or in opposition of the amendment in committee. In the Senate, no witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Neutral

True Texas Project: Against

Huffines Liberty Foundation: No Position

Current Revolt: Verdict: I hope the parks are cool

Proposition 12 – HJR 134 “The constitutional amendment providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

HJR 134 proposes a constitutional amendment to abolish the office of County Treasurer in Galveston County. The amendment would authorize the Galveston County Commissioners Court to employ or contract with a qualified person or designate another county officer to perform any functions that would have been performed by the County Treasurer. The proposed amendment would take effect only if a majority of the voters of Galveston County voting on the proposition favor the amendment.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters23 say:

• “The Galveston County Treasurer’s Office does not provide a sufficient level of added protection for taxpayers to justify the amount of county funds needed to operate the office.”
• “The duties of the office of county treasurer could and would be absorbed by other county departments and done at a cost savings to taxpayers.”
• “Galveston County is well suited to successfully operate without a county treasurer as the county has a number of other officers, including an auditor, CFO, and purchasing agent, who perform duties that are performed by the county trea- surer in other counties.”
• “Elimination of the treasurer’s office is supported by the current Galveston County treasurer, all members of the Galveston County Commissioners Court, and all municipalities in the county.”
• “Galveston County voters have already tacitly approved of abolishing the office of county treasurer by voting for the current county treasurer, who ran on the platform of abolishing the office.”
• “Nine other counties have eliminated their county treasurer position and have been able to continue operating efficient county governments.”
• “Voters statewide have previously recognized that an official treasurer position is not necessary by voting to abolish the office of state treasurer in 1995.”
• “Eliminating a constitutionally elected office is not unprecedented as other such offices, like county land surveyor or animal control officer, have been eliminated in the past.”

Opponents24 say:

• “A stand-alone office of county treasurer that is headed by a person directly elected by county voters provides essential checks and balances in the operation of county government.”
• “Eliminating the office of county treasurer would not provide any real cost savings as the duties undertaken by the office would still be necessary and additional employees would need to be hired in other county departments to carry out those duties.”
• “Eliminating one county office and absorbing its functions into other departments sets a bad precedent and could lead to the concentration of power within the county.”
• “Since the office of county treasurer is a constitutionally elected office, it is important to maintain the office.”

23 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Blackwell, Mary (Self ); Davidson, Zach (Self; Galveston County); Dugie, Hank (Self; Galveston County); King, Dawn (Self; Dickinson chamber of commerce); Lane, Chris (Self ); Lewis, Spencer (Galveston county); Saunders, Sean (Self; League City); Schoellkopf, Shawn (Self; Digiworld Media); West, Justin (Self; Galveston County Precinct 4 Constable); Boney, W brad (Self ); Brown, Della (Self ); Erenwert, Brent (Self; City of friendswod council); Lewis, Roxann (Self ); Wilbanks, Chad (Self ); Prout, Tammy (Self ); Ray, Douglas (Self ); Reese, Jeff (Self ); Rice, Chuck (Texas Association of County Auditors); Rickert, William (Self ); Rushing, Sherry (Self ); Salinas, Christina (Self ); Sephus, Pauline (Self ); Stidham, Bruce (Self ); Swan, Leo (Self ); Tennant, Amy (Self; County Treasurers Association of Texas); Tharp, Jennifer (Self; Comal County Criminal District Attorney’s Office); Turner, Brittni (Self; County Treasurer’s Association of Texas); Vieth, Patricia (Self ); Weaver, Kristan (Self ); Wendel, David (Self; Texas Association of County Auditors); Woolley, J.R. (Self; Justices of the Peace and Constables Association).

24 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee: Furlow, Philip Mack (Self; 106th Judicial District Attorney); Hawkins, Gayla (Self; County Treasurers’ Association of Texas); Helton, Bill (Self ); Henderson, Jennifer (Self; County Treasurers’ Association of Texas, Schleicher County); Lopez, Carlos (Self; Justices of the Peace and Constables Association of Texas); Medrano, Pauline (Self; County Treasurer’s Association of Texas); Monk, Leann (Self ); Soldan, Tracy (Self; County Treasurers Association of Texas); Tenorio, Daphne (Self ); Wyatt, Dr. Carla (Self; Texas County Treasurers Association); Yeatts Brown, Cindy (Self; County Treasurers’ Association of Texas); Adams, Dianna (Self ); Ausbre, Shahayla (Self ); Bailey, Brookelyn (Self ); Bradshaw, Rosa (Self ); Bush, Melanie (Self ); Carcerano, Eric (Self; Chambers County District Attorney’s Office); Crownover, Karrie (Self ); Douglass, Linda (Self ); English, Anita (Self ); Glover, Desotius (Self ); Gregory, Betty (Self ); Griffin, Ebanie (Self ); Haevischer, Bryan (Self ); Harris, Gina (Self; County Treasurer Association of Texas); Hawthorne, Brian (Self; Sheriffs Association of Texas); Hudson, Katherine (Self; County Treasurer Association of Texas); Kile, Tambra (Self; County Treasurers’ Association of Texas); Lee, Jacilet (Self ); McCoy, Leigh (Self; County Treasurer’s Association of Texas); McGinnis, Rhea (Self; County treasurers association of Texas); McGinnis, Rhea (COUNTY TREASURER OF TEXAS ASSOCIATION); Mitchell, Michael (Self ); Pantel, Jama (Justices of the Peace and Constables Association of Texas); Pickens, Carolyn (Self; Brentwood Baptist Church); Price, Velva (County and District Clerk); In the House, the following witness testified or registered on the amendment in committee: Hall Lecuona, Shawn (Self; Kri’ah b’shalom). In the Senate, there were no witnesses registered in support or opposition of the amendment in committee.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: For

True Texas Project: For

Huffines Liberty Foundation: No Position

Current Revolt: Verdict: LOL

Proposition 13 – HJR 107 “The constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

HJR 107 proposes a constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory retirement age for state justices and judges. Currently, the Texas Constitution establishes that justices and judges of the appellate courts, district courts, and criminal district courts must retire on the expiration of the term during which they reach the age of 75 years or an earlier age, not less than 70 years, as the legislature may prescribe. The proposed amendment would change the mandatory retirement age for justices and judges of the appellate courts, district courts, and criminal district courts to 79 years or an earlier age, not less than 75 years, as the legislature may prescribe. The proposed amendment also would remove the provision stating that justices and judges may only serve until December 31 of their fourth year in office if they reach the age of 75 years in the first four years of a six-year term.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters25 say:

• “Because people are living and working longer than in decades past, it is appropriate to allow judges and justices to serve beyond the current mandatory retirement age of 75.”
• “Increasing the mandatory retirement age for judges and justices will allow experienced and competent public servants who are willing to continue to serve.”
• “Allowing judges and justices to serve longer could decrease turnover and ensure a more predictable and stable judicial system.”
• “Since judges and justices in Texas are elected, any issues with the performance of a particular judge or justice can be addressed by the electorate.”

Opponents26 say:

No public opposition was recorded.

25 In the House, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Walker, Jack (Texas Trial Lawyers Association); Birdsong, Kent (Self; Oldham County Attorneys Office); Borskey, Mark (Texas trucking association); Brown, James E.“Buster”(Self); Brown, Jay (Self); Christian, George (Texas Civil Justice League); Emerson, Jennifer (Self ); Laine, Dale (Self; TASFRJ, Inc); Parsley, Lee (Texans for Lawsuit Reform); Tahuahua, Geoffrey (Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas). In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Brown, J E Buster (Self ) , Austin, TX; Emerson, Jennifer (Self ) , Austin, TX; Herman, Guy, Judge (Self; Statutory Probate Judges of Texas), Austin, TX; Laine, Dale (Self; TX Assoc of Senior, Retired and Former Judges, Inc), Austin, TX; Wendell, Ware Executive Director (Texas Watch), Austin, TX.

26 No witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in the House or Senate.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Against

True Texas Project: Against

Huffines Liberty Foundation: No Position

Current Revolt: Verdict: LOL

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.”

SOS Explanatory Statement:

SJR 74 proposes a constitutional amendment to establish the centennial parks conservation fund as a trust fund outside the state treasury. The fund could be used, in accordance with general law, only for the creation and improvement of state parks. The centennial parks conservation fund would consist of: (1) money appropriated, credited, or transferred to the fund by the legislature; (2) gifts, grants, and donations received by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) or its successor for a purpose for which money in the fund may be used; and (3) investment earnings and interest earned on amounts credited to the fund. The proposed amendment would authorize the legislature to appropriate money from the centennial parks conservation fund to TPWD or its successor for the creation and improvement of state parks.

Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Supporters27 say:

• “Establishing a dedicated state fund for the purchase of land to develop new state parks would provide a stable and long- term funding source that will empower the state to protect Texas’ unique natural resources and cultural history while making them accessible to our growing population.”
• “S.J.R. 74 would afford voters the opportunity to ensure that Texans and visitors alike can continue to enjoy the beauty of Texas’ parks for generations to come.”
• “Texas has lower park acreage per capita than many other states, and visitation to Texas’ parks has grown significantly in recent years.”
• “The current state park system is strained by user demand, with the vast majority of sites requiring reservations months in advance.”
• “The fund created by the proposed amendment would enable the state to purchase land for the development of new parks before land becomes more costly.”
• “State parks are a driver of economic activity and provide recreational, educational, and conservation opportunities.”

Comments by Opponent28:

No public opposition was recorded.

27 In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered in support of the amendment in committee: Metzger, Luke, Executive Director (Self; Environment Texas), Austin, TX; Sreenivasan, Rahul, Policy Advisor (also providing written testimony) (Texas 2036), Austin, TX; Good, Kevin, President (Self; Texans for State Parks), Austin, TX; Hinkle, Ron (Texas Travel Alliance), Austin, TX; Reed, Cyrus, Conservation director (Lone star chapter Sierra club), Austin, TX; Shepperd, John, Executive Director (Self; Texas Foundation for Conservation), Austin, TX. In the Senate, the following witnesses testified or registered on the amendment committee: Goshen, Danielle (also providing written testimony) (National Wildlife Federation), Austin, TX; Olson, Lori, Executive Director (Texas Land Trust Council), Wimberley, TX; Franklin, Rodney, State Parks Division Director (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department), Austin, TX.

28 In the Senate, no witnesses testified or registered in opposition of the amendment in committee. No witness list provided for the House on this amendment.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Against

True Texas Project: Against

Huffines Liberty Foundation: No Position

Current Revolt: Verdict: Ok are we done?

These links reference the above recommendations plus provide additional amendment information.

Ballot Order for the Nov. 7 Constitutional Amendment Election (SOS)

Explanatory Statements for the November 7, 2023 Constitutional Amendment Election (SOS)

2023 Guide to Constitutional Amendments in Texas (Texas Public Policy Foundation)

November Constitutional Amendment Recommendation Roundup (Texas Scorecard)

November 2023 Elections (True Texas Project)

More Corporate Welfare in the Texas Constitution | Six Propositions on the November 7 Ballot (Huffines Liberty Foundation)

Analyses of Proposed Constitutional Amendments (Texas Legislative Council)

Texans Can Save Billions by Voting No on November 7 (The Liberty Café/Texas Scorecard)

The 14 Constitutional Amendments from the 88th Session Explained (Current Revolt)

And again, election day is Nov. 7 with early voting running Oct. 23, through Nov. 3. Click here to identify your polling location.

Lou Ann Anderson is a writer, former radio producer and current podcaster at Political Pursuits.  Her tenure as Watchdog Wire–Texas editor involved covering state news and coordinating the site’s citizen journalist network. As a past Policy Analyst with Americans for Prosperity–Texas, Lou Ann wrote and spoke on a variety of issues including the growing issue of probate abuse in which wills, trusts, guardianships and powers of attorney are used to loot assets from intended heirs or beneficiaries.  She holds a degree from the University of North Texas in Denton.