Pratt’s recommendations for the November 2, 2021 Texas Constitutional Amendment Election

Once again listeners have emailed asking for my recommendations on this year’s Texas constitutional amendment election. Early voting begins Monday, 18 October 2021 and runs through Friday, 29 October 2021. Election day is Tuesday, 2 November 2021.

Most often all amendments pass with wide margins and I have no illusion that my opposition to some will make a difference but these are my recommendations.

The ballot wording and explanatory statements are directly from the Office of the Secretary of State with my voting recommendation and reasoning, if any offered, following.

Summary of Pratt recommendations:
For 3, 6, 7 and 8. Against 1, 2 and 5. Neutral on 4.

Proposition Number 1
(HJR 143)

HJR 143 proposes a constitutional amendment expanding the circumstances in which a professional sports team charitable foundation may conduct raffles to raise money for the foundation’s charitable purposes. The proposed amendment would allow professional sports team charitable foundations of organizations sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association or the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association to hold charitable raffles at rodeo events.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the professional sports team charitable foundations of organizations sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association or the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association to conduct charitable raffles at rodeo venues.”

Pratt will vote NO on Proposition 1.

Reasoning: I’m not against charity raffles at venues or rodeos but this proposition only exists because last time around legislators failed to include rodeos. What will we be forced to vote on again next time because it was left out, beach volleyball tournaments?! Just pass an amendment that allows charitable raffles at any venue or go back to it being illegal for all.

Proposition Number 2
(HJR 99)

HJR 99 proposes a constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to authorize a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area within the county and to pledge for repayment of those bonds or notes increases in property tax revenues imposed on property in the area by the county. The Texas Constitution gives the legislature the power to authorize an incorporated city or town to issue such bonds or notes but does not expressly give the legislature the power to grant that same authority to counties. The proposed amendment also provides that a county that issues bonds or notes for transportation improvements may not pledge for the repayment of those bonds or notes more than 65 percent of the increases in ad valorem tax revenues each year, and a county may not use proceeds from the bonds or notes to finance the construction, operation, maintenance, or acquisition of rights-of-way of a toll road.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing a county to finance the development or redevelopment of transportation or infrastructure in unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted areas in the county.”

Pratt will vote NO on Proposition 2.

Reasoning: Terri Hall, an active property tax rights advocate, had this right in saying this is no different than Prop. 4 from 2011 that voters rejected.

“Now, they think they can get it past voters this November by removing the phrase “ad valorem tax increases” and including the word “transportation,” since ballot initiatives for transportation tend to pass with more than 80 percent of the vote. In fact, Proposition 2 would authorize counties to divert up to 65 percent of your property tax increases to projects the state should be funding with your existing road taxes,” Hall wrote.

My bigger problem with it is that it appears to be authorization for counties to engage in a form of urban-renewal, call it rural-renewal in some cases, that almost always becomes a stinking pile of wasteful boondoggle programs. The item is not limited to transportation but includes “infrastructure” which could be anything including housing or commercial development.

We don’t need counties joining cities in trying to play developer or forcing taxpayers into financing the type of programs that all too often become pies of money for politically connected types to feed upon.

Proposition Number 3
(SJR 27)

SJR 27 proposes a constitutional amendment barring the State of Texas or a political subdivision from enacting, adopting, or issuing a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that prohibits or limits religious services. The proposed amendment would apply to religious services, including those conducted in churches, congregations, and places of worship, in the state by a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”

Pratt will vote YES on Proposition 3.

Proposition Number 4
(SJR 47)

SJR 47 proposes a constitutional amendment changing certain eligibility requirements for a justice of the Supreme Court, a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge. The proposed amendment provides that a person is eligible to serve on the Supreme Court if the person, among other qualifications, is licensed to practice law in Texas; is a resident of Texas at the time of election; has been either a practicing lawyer licensed in Texas for at least ten years or a practicing lawyer licensed in Texas and a judge of a state court or county court established by the legislature for a combined total of at least ten years; and during that time has not had the person’s license to practice law revoked, suspended, or subject to a probated suspension. The same eligibility requirements would apply to a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals and to a justice of a court of appeals. The proposed amendment further provides that to be eligible for appointment or election as a district judge, a person must be a resident of Texas; be licensed to practice law in Texas; and have been a practicing lawyer or a judge of a court in Texas, or both combined, for eight years preceding the person’s election, during which time the person’s license to practice law has not been revoked, suspended, or subject to a probated suspension.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.”

Pratt is NEUTRAL on Proposition 4.

Reasoning: There are cases where voters would be better served by this increase in qualifying experience but nothing ensures that such experience is good, or positive. An experienced bad lawyer is still a bad lawyer. The new rules will restrict some talented younger people from running for judge. I believe it is likely to have as much negative effect for voters as positive especially in rural judicial districts where there is a thin selection of lawyers to begin with.

Proposition Number 5
(HJR 165)

HJR 165 proposes a constitutional amendment allowing the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) to accept complaints or reports, conduct investigations, and take any other authorized action with respect to a candidate for a state judicial office. Currently, the Texas Constitution only permits the SCJC to take such actions as to persons holding a judicial office.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment providing additional powers to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with respect to candidates for judicial office.” 

Pratt will vote NO on Proposition 5.

Reasoning: This move changes the role of the commission created to regulate the conduct of Judicial Branch officers to one that can involve itself in political races for the judiciary. Anyone with substantial experience in political campaigning in Texas well knows, from a plethora of examples with the so-called Texas Ethics Commissions and complaints strategically filed during campaigns solely to damage candidates, that the same behavior will follow into the judicial races and the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Human nature doesn’t change because the races are for the courts. You can expect, over time, a full mission creep of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct into campaigns – it is a power too hard to resist.

The commission is composed of six judges appointed by the Supreme Court, two attorneys from the state bar, and five citizen members appointed by the governor. Can you imagine how the commission could be abused if a majority were Leftists who seem to recognize no boundaries to political behavior? Getting this commission involved at the campaign level would prove a way for the entrenched political power in the courts to interfere in key elections to maintain that power.

Proposition Number 6
(SJR 19)

SJR 19 proposes a constitutional amendment establishing that residents of certain facilities have the right to designate an essential caregiver with whom the facility may not prohibit in-person visitation. The proposed amendment would apply to a nursing facility, assisted living facility, intermediate care facility for individuals with an intellectual disability, residence providing home and community-based services, or state supported living center. The proposed amendment also would authorize the legislature to provide guidelines for these facilities to follow in establishing essential caregiver visitation policies and procedures.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment establishing a right for residents of certain facilities to designate an essential caregiver for in-person visitation.”

 Pratt will vote YES on Proposition 6.

Proposition Number 7
(HJR 125)

HJR 125 proposes a constitutional amendment permitting a person who is 55 years of age or older at the time of death of their spouse who is receiving a limitation on school district property taxes on their residence homestead on the basis of a disability to continue receiving the limitation while the property remains the surviving spouse’s residence homestead.

The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to allow the surviving spouse of a person who is disabled to receive a limitation on the school district ad valorem taxes on the spouse’s residence homestead if the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person’s death.”

 Pratt will vote YES on Proposition 7.

Proposition Number 8
(SJR 35)

SJR 35 proposes a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation 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 or fatally injured in the line of duty. The Texas Constitution provides a property tax exemption to the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services who is killed in action, but the current exemption does not include members of the military who die during their service due to injuries sustained that are not combat-related.

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 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 or fatally injured in the line of duty.”

Pratt will vote YES on Proposition 8.