Texas will hold its biennial election on amendments to the state constitution on Tuesday, November 3. The Libertarian Party of Texas makes the following recommendations on the seven proposed amendments and two important local ballot initiatives:
Proposition 1, SJR 1: Oppose
“The constitutional amendment increasing the amount of the residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxation for public school purposes from $15,000 to $25,000, providing for a reduction of the limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for those purposes on the homestead of an elderly or disabled person to reflect the increased exemption amount, authorizing the legislature to prohibit a political subdivision that has adopted an optional residence homestead exemption from ad valorem taxation from reducing the amount of or repealing the exemption, and prohibiting the enactment of a law that imposes a transfer tax on a transaction that conveys fee simple title to real property.”
Though this proposition would appear to reduce the property taxes on homeowners, there is a provision for the State to hold school districts harmless for property tax losses, effectively shifting the tax burden from local school districts to State taxpayers. This legislation would require the School Districts to basically create two tax bills. If the proposition fails a supplemental tax bill would be sent. This does far more harm than good creating confusion for home owners who pay their own taxes and for mortgage companies which pay taxes from escrow.
LPTexas is universally in favor of tax reduction, but this bill does not reduce taxes. It merely shifts the tax burden from school districts (a government entity) to private citizens.
Proposition 2, SJR 75: Support (with reservation)
“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 100 percent or totally disabled veteran who died before the law authorizing a residence homestead exemption for such a veteran took effect.”
This one is the most contentious for us and we don’t expect anything resembling a consensus on this decision. On the one hand it does, in fact, reduce taxes for a number of people. We like that. On the other hand it only reduces taxes for a certain type of person, creating yet another “special class” of citizen under the law. We don’t like that. LPTexas believes that forced taxation is immoral and that all citizens should be treated equally under the law. We recommend supporting this proposal at this time because we may be able to use it as leverage to reduce the taxation on the general populace at a later date.
Proposition 3, SJR 52: Support (with reservation)
“The constitutional amendment repealing the requirement that state officers elected by voters statewide reside in the state capital.”
There is no reason to force elected statewide officers to live in the City of Austin and this proposition reverses that current situation. Current law doesn’t even allow them to live in the suburbs, and this seems egregious in our modern society. Here’s the twist: this bill will also allow state officers to be prosecuted for state crimes in their home county- which may have the result of additional leniency being extended to indicted elected officials. On the other hand, office holders are currently prosecuted in liberal Travis County, which may have the opposite result. This bill, almost certainly, comes as a result of the Rick Perry indictment. We are choosing to begrudgingly support it at this time due to the removal of force in regards to where elected officials can live as well as LPTexas’ commitment to due process.
Proposition 4, HJR 73: Support
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit professional sports team charitable foundations to conduct charitable raffles.”
This results in more liberty for some people without taking liberty from anyone else. We would, again, prefer this liberty be universally recognized instead of just to “professional sports team charitable foundations,” but our analysis sees no need to throw a yellow flag on this one.
Proposition 5, SJR 17: Support
“The constitutional amendment to authorize counties with a population of 7,500 or less to perform private road construction and maintenance.”
The previous limitation on counties being allowed to perform private road construction and maintenance was 5,000. This provision (adopted into the Texas Constitution more than 25 years ago) allows (but does not compel) private land owners to contract with county governments to perform services that might not otherwise be available to them.
Proposition 6, SJR 22: Support
“The constitutional amendment recognizing the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation.”
It does nothing specific to current laws or regulations, and merely affirms the rights of individuals to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.
Proposition 7, SJR 5: Support (with reservation)
“The constitutional amendment dedicating certain sales and use tax revenue and motor vehicle sales, use, and rental tax revenue to the state highway fund to provide funding for non-tolled roads and the reduction of certain transportation-related debt.”
Proposition 7 would simply dedicate certain taxes to roads without changing any taxation policy. What makes us lean towards supporting is the constant reminder from the opponents that they could spend the money on other things. Also, the arguments regarding the inefficiency of the current funding, delay in projects, and debt service pushes us towards the support side.
Travis County Bond Proposition: Oppose
“The issuance of $287,275,000 of bonds for the purpose of constructing, improving and equipping civil and family courts facilities and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.”
This is simply another example of government looking to spend money it does not really have.
Fluoride Free San Marcos: Support
“The City of San Marcos shall not add, or direct or require its agents to add fluoride in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid, hexafluorosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride to the San Marcos municipal water supply.”
Regardless of how you feel about the supposed dental benefits of fluoride, it is not a function of government to add any type of medication to the general water supply. The potential harms of the forced-medication precedent are too numerous to list here. Please visit Fluoride Free San Marcos on Facebook for more information.
Click here for the complete voter guide online.