Guide to the November 5th, 2013 Texas Constitutional Amendment Election

Pratt on Texas guide to the Texas Constitutional Amendment Election for 5 November 2013

  • I’ll be rolling out more Yes/No recommendations on each item as Early Voting nears.
  • Media stories and resources will be added to each item as such is found.
  • Remember that the vote on the amendment for funding transportation projects, by capturing half of what now goes in the rainy day fund, will not be on this ballot, it will be voted on in 2014.
  • Election Day is Tuesday, November 5th. Early voting runs from Monday, October 21st through Friday, November 1st.

 

Proposition 1 – Ballot LanguageYes

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed in action.

Proposition Number 1 – Official Explanation  (HJR 62)

HJR 62 proposes a constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide by statute for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the United States armed services who is killed in action, as long as the surviving spouse has not remarried. An eligible spouse who later qualifies a different property as the surviving spouse’s residence homestead could be authorized by statute to receive an exemption from ad valorem taxation in the same amount received for the first qualifying homestead during the last year in which the surviving spouse received the exemption.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed in action.”

———————————————————

Proposition 2 – Ballot LanguageYes

The constitutional amendment eliminating an obsolete requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a State Medical Education Fund, neither of which is operational.

Proposition Number 2 – Official Explanation  (HJR 79)

HJR 79 proposes a constitutional amendment to repeal the constitutional provision requiring the creation of a State Medical Education Board and a State Medical Education Fund, neither of which is in operation. No new loans have been made from the fund by the board in more than 25 years, and the board currently has no appointees and receives no program funding.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment eliminating an obsolete requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a State Medical Education Fund, neither of which is operational.”

———————————————————

Proposition 3 – Ballot LanguageYes

The constitutional amendment to authorize a political subdivision of this state to extend the number of days that aircraft parts that are exempt from ad valorem taxation due to their location in this state for a temporary period may be located in this state for purposes of qualifying for the tax exemption.”

Proposition Number 3 – Official Explanation  (HJR 133)

HJR 133 would authorize local political subdivisions to extend the length of time that aircraft parts could remain temporarily in this state before being subject to ad valorem taxation. Under current law, merchandise, wares, and goods (including aircraft parts) may remain in this state temporarily for up to 175 days before being subject to ad valorem taxation; the proposed amendment would permit taxing entities to extend the exemption up to 730 days after the date that a person acquired or imported aircraft parts in the state.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to authorize a political subdivision of this state to extend the number of days that aircraft parts that are exempt from ad valorem taxation due to their location in this state for a temporary period may be located in this state for purposes of qualifying for the tax exemption.”

———————————————————

Proposition 4 – Ballot LanguageYes

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization.

Proposition Number 4 – Official Explanation  (HJR 24)

HJR 24 proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran at no cost to the veteran by a charitable organization.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization.”

———————————————————

Proposition 5 – Ballot LanguageYes

The constitutional amendment to authorize the making of a reverse mortgage loan for the purchase of homestead property and to amend lender disclosures and other requirements in connection with a reverse mortgage loan.

Proposition Number 5 – Official Explanation  (SJR 18)

SJR 18 would amend the definition of “reverse mortgage” to authorize the making of reverse mortgage loans for the purchase of homestead property in addition to the current legal uses of those loans, and would give lenders recourse against borrowers who fail to timely occupy the homestead properties purchased with such loans. SJR 18 would also add to the definition of “reverse mortgage” an extension of credit that is not closed before the 12th day after the lender provides to the prospective borrower a written notice summarizing risks and conditions of a reverse mortgage. The language of the required notice is prescribed in the resolution.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to authorize the making of a reverse mortgage loan for the purchase of homestead property and to amend lender disclosures and other requirements in connection with a reverse mortgage loan.”

———————————————————

Proposition 6 – Ballot LanguageYes

The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas to assist in the financing of priority projects in the state water plan to ensure the availability of adequate water resources.

Proposition Number 6 – Official Explanation  (SJR 1)

SJR 1 would create the State Water Implementation Fund as a special fund inside the state treasury and outside the General Revenue Fund. Money in the fund would be administered by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and would be used to implement the state water plan, as adopted by general law, by TWDB.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas to assist in the financing of priority projects in the state water plan to ensure the availability of adequate water resources.”

———————————————————

Proposition 7 – Ballot LanguageNo

The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.

Proposition Number 7 – Official Explanation  (HJR 87)

HJR 87 proposes a constitutional amendment to allow home-rule municipalities to adopt charter provisions authorizing the filling of vacancies in the governing body by appointment, but only when the remainder of the vacant term is less than 12 months. Under current law, municipal voters may adopt terms of office for municipal officers longer than two years, but upon approving longer terms of office, any resulting vacancies in office must be filled by special election. The proposed amendment would provide an option for home-rule municipalities to fill short-term vacancies through appointment.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.”

———————————————————

Proposition 8 – Ballot LanguageNo

The constitutional amendment repealing Section 7, Article IX, Texas Constitution, which relates to the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County.

Proposition Number 8 – Official Explanation  (HJR 147 and SJR 54)

HJR 147 would repeal the Texas Constitution’s maximum tax rate for a Hidalgo County hospital district; the maximum rate is currently set at 10 cents per $100 valuation. This rate is lower than the maximum tax rate allowable for hospital districts in all other counties in the State (75 cents per $100 valuation). The repeal of the constitutional cap would authorize hospital district tax rates in Hidalgo County equal to the hospital district tax rate laws applicable to all other Texas counties.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment repealing Section 7, Article IX, Texas Constitution, which relates to the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County.”

———————————————————

Proposition 9 – Ballot Language

No

The constitutional amendment relating to expanding the types of sanctions that may be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding instituted by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Proposition Number 9 – Official Explanation  (SJR 42)

SJR 42 would expand the potential sanctions that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct can issue following a formal proceeding. This constitutional amendment would allow the Commission to issue an order of public admonition, warning, reprimand, or a requirement to obtain additional training or education in addition to the Commission’s current authority to issue a public censure or recommend removal or retirement of a judge.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment relating to expanding the types of sanctions that may be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding instituted by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.”

———————————————————

Additional resources:

 

I welcome your comments (pro/con/questioning) about the proposed amendments below:

Comments

  1. Randall johnson says:

    Thanks Pratt for all your imput on all voting, LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL. I try keeping up but can’t . I listen to your show as much as I can and haven’t heard anything I disagree with. Thanks for your help, LONG LIVE TEXAS..

  2. Alton Ryan says:

    Thanks for the recommendations. I take them seriously. Why “no” on 9?

  3. Pat Hippely says:

    I agree with all of your recommendations except for prop 6. Giving the “sustainable junkie” TWDB free reign/ implementation over such a fund is like giving the TCEQ or EPA free reign over changing the rest of our constitutional rights. I suggest everyone spend a little time on the TWDB website before making up their mind on this one. In my opinion .. this is the one they are hoping flies under the radar. They are using water fears like Obama/ progressives use entitlement fears. Heck Robert .. even the usual eco-terrorists don’t know which way to vote on that prop 6. Perry/ the “sustainable” Texas legislature are for it and Straus is out actually campaigning for it. That combination alone should make everyone want to pay a little more attention to prop 6.

    The less free reign our UN led sustainable govt departments (who are following more UN international soft law than they are sovereign law) are .. the better. As everyone is finding out .. they are not accountable to us when they implement/ follow UN “soft law” at the state/ local level.

    Just my opinion but I recommend voting no on prop 6 the way it stands,

    Thanks for all you do Robert :)

    • Katherine Saunders says:

      I actually agree. No seems like a better choice for me personally

      • Pratt on Texas says:

        I could have gone either way. My point is that passing 6 does nothing to change the new water board and it already has access to billions. That situation remains constant whether or not 6 passes.

        And, 6 doesn’t “spend” money, it’s a corpus to be used as a base for a loan fund for water projects voted for, and paid for, by local entities around the state. It doesn’t let the TWDB just start spending money on anything it wants. Items in the water plan come from local and regional groups. In other words, there’s not much down-side to passing 6 in and of itself. All the objection to the new TWDB, and I have many, remain constant even if 6 fails. Thus, voting against 6 is mostly punitive – and I don’t entirely disagree.

  4. Thanks as usual for your recommendations.

  5. Virginia and Garon Cagle says:

    Robert, Your Pratt on Texas guide is priceless for us voters who are concerned but often too busy to do as much research as you do for us. Thank you for your passion and dedication. These issues are vital to us all!

What do you think?...

© Pratt on Texas / Perstruo Texas, Inc.