All 14 Texas Constitutional Amendments on the November Ballot
ELECTION NOTICE: Nov. 7, 2023, Constitutional Amendments Election
September 23, 2023 | Montgomery County, TX
Every election is important! Every vote counts! YOUR vote is YOUR voice!
The Montgomery County Republican Party is dedicated to bringing Montgomery County voters the information they need to make educated decisions at the polls. This November, voters will be asked to decide on making 14 changes to the Texas Constitution. These changes or amendments are important to all Texans and should not be taken lightly. It is not our intention to tell voters how to vote, but to provide unbiased information to help voters make informed decisions.
14 Constitutional Amendments on Nov. 2023 Ballot
These amendments will all be on the November 7 ballot for voters to approve or reject.
Proposition 1: “The constitutional amendment protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management.”
This seems like a “no-brainer;” however, there is more to it than meets the eye. Although one would assume that Texas farmers and ranchers go about their business of producing food for Texas and the world without government interference, they are often met with overreaching ordinances, rules, and laws from local city or county governments that costs farmers a great deal of time and money to fight.
Farmers are spending thousands of dollars and countless hours fighting what they term “nuisance ordinances” that can result in large fines. Examples of these ordinances relate to the height of grass in pastures and hay fields, the painting of metal fence posts to meet city specifications, the dust created by harvesting crops, and the storing of hay bales on the property to name a few.
This amendment would supersede local ordinances and protect local farmers and ranchers from such “nuisance ordinances.”
This amendment was HJR 126 in the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: FOR
Information Source: Ballotpedia, Texas Proposition 1, Right to Farming, Ranching, Timber Production, Horticulture, and Wildlife Management Amendment (2023) - Ballotpedia
Proposition 2: “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.”
Ad valorem tax=property tax
This bill would provide county/city taxing entities the option to exempt in all or part any property used as an eligible day-care facility from property taxes.
According to Sen. Royce West (D-23) “The Texas child-care shortage is likely to have devastating effects on early childhood education, economic growth, and employment opportunities for parents. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Texas’ economy loses more than $9 billion every year due to inadequate child care. S.J.R. 64 seeks to address this issue by allowing the legislature, by general law, to exempt from property taxation all or part of the appraised value of real property used to operate a child-care facility.”
This bill will reduce property tax liabilities to facility owner/operators whether they lease or own the property. Property owners leasing to an eligible day care facility must reduce the rent to account for the reduction in property tax. This could allow the facility to hire more workers, pay a higher wage, or reduce costs to customers.
On the other hand, this law grants an exemption to a particular business type with no guarantees the savings will be passed to the consumer or used to improve services.
According to conservative activist Mark Ramsey, if the childcare facility changes the use of its property, reauthorization for the exemption is not required. He added, “It also has an interesting wrinkle to it because if a local Commissioners Court decides to exempt a childcare facility from taxes, they don’t have to exempt all childcare facilities…it lets big city local Democrats pick the winners and losers. Conservative Republicans opposed this bill, while Democrats and Moderate Republicans supported it.”
“Childcare may be an important element of our society, but exempting one type of business from taxes increases the burden on others,” the MCRP Legislative Committee said.
This amendment was SJR 64 in the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: Voters must decide if the pros outweigh the cons.
Information Source: Ballotpedia, Texas Proposition 2, Property Tax Exemption for Childcare Facilities Amendment (2023) - Ballotpedia
Proposition 3: “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.”
This one is pretty straight forward. A “for” vote will prohibit the legislature from ever imposing a wealth tax on Texans. Texas passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting the establishment of a personal income tax in 2019. This amendment offers further protection from taxation based on the wealth of an individual.
This amendment was HJR 132 in the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: FOR
Proposition 4: “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.”
This is the one Texans have been waiting for! It may not be what most Texans wanted, the elimination of property taxes, but it does provide some relief for property owners.
The most notable forms of relief:
Increases homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,00.
Provides for the election of up to three members of the appraisal board.
Limits appraisal increases on non-homestead property
Overall, this is the best taxpayers are going to get during this session and most all should see some significant relief this year.
This amendment was HJR 2 from the second legislative special session.
Recommendation: FOR
Proposition 5: “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.”
This amendment would change the name of the National Research University Fund to the Texas University Fund and establish annual funding by allocating the interest income, dividends, and investment earnings of the Texas Rainy Day Fund. 2024 funding would be limited to $100 million then capped at a 2 percent growth rate. The allocation of funds would be available to a select list of state universities, excluding the University of Texas and Texas A&M systems, as they receive research funds from the Permanent University Fund, established in 1876 with a current value of approximately $30 billion.
It is suggested that readers check out the article, Leveling the Playing Field in Texas: A new endowment for “emerging” Texas research universities, from Inside Higher Ed. Funding would begin with a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR taxpayer-funded endowment to the Texas University Fund and would benefit only four universities: University of Houston, Texas Tech, Texas State, and the University of North Texas.
This amendment was HJR 3 from the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: With the cost of tuition for Texas students so high, wouldn’t this tax-payer money be better used to lower tuition at the very least? Do universities need more taxpayer funds when so many students are graduating with degrees that do not lead to well paying jobs or careers and many of them are producing liberal graduates who oppose conservative principles? Do extra research before voting.
Information Source: Ballotpedia, Texas 2023 Ballot Measures
Proposition 6: “The constitutional amendment creating the Texas Water Fund to assist in financing water projects in this state.”
One has to ask why we need another Water Fund since there is already a Texas Water Development Fund that was established by the 1957 Legislature (Texas Water Development Fund, Proposition 2 (1957). The 1957 Water Development Fund is charged with:
creating the Texas Water Development Fund and a governing board,
authorizing the board to issue up to $100 million in bonds for water resource development and conservation, and
allowing the legislature to approve up to $100 million in additional bonds for the same purpose.
Why do we need another Water Fund that will be administered by the same three-member administrative board appointed by the Governor? This new “fund” will be anointed with $1 billion of taxpayer funds.
According to Ballotpedia:
“Proposition 6 would establish in the Texas Constitution the Texas Water Fund administered by the Texas Water Development Board. The board would be authorized to transfer funds between the state Water Fund and the Water Assistance Fund No. 480, the New Water Supply for Texas Fund, the Rural Water Assistance Fund No. 301, or the Statewide Water Public Awareness Account.
“The Water Fund would consist of money allocated by the state legislature, gifts and grants, and investment earnings of the fund. The amendment would require no less than 25% of the initial allocation to the fund by the legislature to be transferred to the New Water Supply for Texas Fund. Money appropriated by the state legislature to the fund would be excluded from the state's appropriation limit.”
According to Texas Legislative Council:
“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.”
This amendment was SJR 75 from the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: The key here is that this fund is the legislature’s way to circumvent appropriation limits. Does Texas need a means to fund essential water projects? Most assuredly. But do we need to establish more and more “funds” in order to circumvent existing legislative limits? That is a question you, the voter, must answer.
Proposition 7: “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities.”
A “for” vote supports creating the Texas Energy Fund to be administered by the Public Utilities Commission and authorizing the State Legislature to allocate funds for the modernization of electric generating facilities.
An “against” vote opposes creating the Texas Energy Fund to be administered by the Public Utilities Commission and authorizing the State Legislature to allocate funds for the modernization of electric generating facilities.
According to conservative activist Mark Ramsey, this is an electric utility lobbyists bill that breaks the Texas Legislature’s spending caps and grows government. Texas utility companies have the ability to raise their rates without taxpayer dollars being funneled into utility companies.
According to the MCRP Legislative Committee, “This amendment would rely on providing state money to electric generators, putting government between consumers and the market, rather than allowing market forces to select the most reliable and efficient forms of energy.”
This amendment was SJR 93 from the regular legislative session.
Additional Information Source: Texas Creation of State Energy Fund Amendment (2023) - Ballotpedia.
Recommendation: Where do the funds for this fund come from? This is something taxpayers should investigate before deciding how to vote on this proposition. We contacted Senator Bettencourt’s office for information on what the impact to the taxpayer would be if this amendment passes, but have not heard back from his office. We will include updates to this article and future newsletters as we receive it, or you may personally contact him here or contact your Texas legislators here.
Proposition 8: “The constitutional amendment creating the broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband access and assist in the financing of connectivity projects.”
This fund, administered by the State Comptroller would be used for:
(1) the development, construction, reconstruction, and expansion of broadband and telecommunications infrastructure or services;
(2) the operation of broadband and telecommunications infrastructure;
(3) the provision of broadband and telecommunications services; and
(4) the reasonable expenses of administering and managing the investments of the fund. (Section 49 of Article 3 of the state Constitution would be changed to include the above.)
This is another fund within the existing Texas Broadband Infrastructure Fund (BIF). Upon voter approval of this proposition, $1.5 billion from the General Revenue Fund would be deposited to the fund.
Take a look at some comments by supporters and opponents from the Texas Legislative Council Analysis Report.
Comments by Supporters
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 dollars on a four-to-one basis.
A state funding source for broadband expansion will provide much-needed flexibility in achieving broadband attainment goals that is missing with federal programs that come with certain added constraints.
Comments by Opponents
The broadband infrastructure fund should be required to prioritize projects that develop fiber optic broadband infrastructure, 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.
According to conservative activist Mark Ramsey, telecom companies will benefit from this amendment, and some rural residents. By the time we get the infrastructure in the ground, this technology will be obsolete.
The MCRP Legislative Committee asks, “Why does our state government want to give our money to corporations? Broadband is an important part of our economy and infrastructure, but it is also a lucrative business. We should not be subsidizing it.”
This amendment was HJR 125 from the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: Does Texas need to invest an additional $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds now with the inflation rate, property taxes so high, and the state of the economy? Could it be accomplished using federal funds?
Proposition 9: Texas Changes to Teacher Retirement System Amendment
A “for” vote supports amending the State Constitution to authorize the State Legislature to make cost-of-living adjustments to certain annuitants, as defined by law, of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.
An “against” vote opposes amending the State Constitution to authorize the State Legislature to make cost-of-living adjustments to certain annuitants, as defined by law, of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.
Note: This writer has a vested interest in this amendment, as a retired teacher.
This amendment would give eligible retired educators a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to their retirement payments for the first time in 20 years. The amount of the COLA is based on the length of time one has been retired: a 2% COLA for those who retired between Sep. 1, 2013 and Aug. 31, 2020; a 4% COLA for those who retired between Sept. 1, 2001 and Aug. 31, 2013; and a 6% COLA for those who retired on and before Aug. 31, 2001. The COLAs are not yet guaranteed as they are pending voter approval in November.
This amendment was HJR 2 from the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: FOR - Considering that retirees have not had a COLA “raise” in benefits in 20 years and amount is determined by length of time retired, this is much needed.
Information Source: 2023 TRS Retiree Benefit Enhancements (texas.gov)
Proposition 10: “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.”
Ad valorem tax=property tax
This amendment would provide an exemption from taxation of products and land owned or leased that is located in a biomedical facility. Other products exempted from ad valorem taxes are agricultural and pollution control equipment.
SB 2289 defines medical and biomedical property as “tangible property that is (A) stored, used, or consumed in the manufacturing or processing of medical or biomedical products by a medical or biomedical manufacturer; or (B) intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a condition or disease or in medical or biomedical research.” This would include devices, therapeutics, pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment, tools, implants, instruments, and apparatuses. The law would take effect on January 1, 2024, if the amendment is passed.
Recommendation: Supporters point out that as of now there is no incentive for manufacturers to build in Texas, and this might bring more business to Texas. Opponents say that exemptions for some translate into a higher tax burden for others.
Proposition 11: “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.”
Ad valorem tax=property tax
A “for” vote supports amending the State Constitution to authorize the State Legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds to fund parks and recreational facilities.
An “against” vote opposes this Constitutional Amendment, thereby maintaining that conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County cannot issue bonds.
According to Ballotpedia, the measure would amend section 59 of Article XVI of the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds to fund parks and recreational facilities and levy property taxes to repay the bonds.
Interesting Note: Unlike Proposition 12, the Galveston County Treasurer amendment, this amendment will be decided by the voters of Texas, not just El Paso County. This amendment does provide that property taxes will pay for the bonds; hence, tax increase is likely for residents of El Paso County.
This amendment was SJR 32 from the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: AGAINST - Although this would not impact Texas voters, tax wise, it might set a precedent for other counties. During this time of financial uncertainty and inflation, a “no” vote might do the residents of El Paso County and all Texans a favor.
Information Source: Texas Authorize Bond Issues in Conservation and Reclamation Districts in El Paso County Amendment (2023) - Ballotpedia
Proposition 12: “The constitutional amendment providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County.”
A “for” vote supports amending the State Constitution to provide for the abolishment of the Galveston County Treasurer and authorizing the county to employ or contract a qualified person or designate another county officer to fulfill the function previously performed by the Treasurer.
An “against” vote opposes amending the State Constitution to provide for the abolishment of the Galveston County Treasurer. The actual wording of the amendment is:
The office of County Treasurer in Galveston County is abolished. The Commissioners Court of Galveston County may employ or contract with a qualified person or may designate another county officer to perform any of the functions that would have been performed by the County Treasurer if the office had not been abolished.
TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) The Constitutional Amendment proposed by the 88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, abolishing the office of County Treasurer in Galveston County takes effect only if, at the statewide election at which the amendment is submitted to and approved by the voters, a majority of the voters of Galveston County voting on the question at that election also favor the amendment. The amendment takes effect January 1, 2024, if the conditions of this subsection are met.
(b) This temporary provision expires January 2, 2024. [3]
The present office holder, Hank Dugie, ran on the abolishment of this office. According to Dugie, the office is not needed. An abc13online article by Courtney Carpenter posted on Jan. 6, 2023, stated that the county could save approximately $500,000 a year by abolishing the position.
Interesting Note: Although the entire state votes on the amendment, the temporary provision states that unless the voters of Galveston County approve the amendment, it does not become law, regardless of the statewide vote.
This amendment was HJR 134 from the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: FOR, remembering the ultimate choice belongs to Galveston County voters.
Proposition 13: “The constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges.”
This one is definitely a subjective call on the part of the voter. Age has become a huge factor in political discussions. Over the past few years, we have seen how the aging of influential and powerful senators, representatives, and even the president has come to the forefront of the news. Judges and their decisions can have long-lasting and far-reaching consequences for society.
There may be some advantages as pointed out in the Texas Legislative Council Analysis Report:
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.
This amendment was HJR 107 from the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: Given the recent decline in the health and cognitive abilities of prominent officials, do the potential advantages outweigh the potential disadvantages? The voter will have to decide.
Proposition 14: “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the centennial parks conservation fund to be used for the creation and improvement of state parks.”
The State Park System is presently funded by a portion of sales tax on sporting goods and state park user fees, and legislative appropriations. The new fund would initially be funded, upon passage of this amendment, with $1 billion in legislative appropriations.
The new fund “would be created as a trust fund outside the treasury and would authorize the use of the fund only for the creation and improvement of state parks, in accordance with general law, and to pay the reasonable expenses of managing the fund and its assets. The fund would consist of: (1) money appropriated, credited, or transferred to the fund by the legislature; (2) gifts, grants, and donations received by the Parks and Wildlife Department or the department’s successor in function for a purpose for which money in the fund may be used under the constitutional provision; and (3) investment earnings and interest earned on amounts credited to the fund.” (Texas Legislative Council Analysis Report)
This amendment was SJR 74 from the regular legislative session.
Recommendation: State Parks are a great heritage for our children, and they provide a means for everyone to spend time in nature, learn to appreciate it, and to protect it from development. However, opponents say that funding this proposition using a constitutional amendment is a way for the legislature to work around constitutionally required spending caps. State Parks are already funded in the state budget and we can’t help but think now is not the best time to fund new parks with the many issues facing Texas taxpayers.
Final Thoughts
Remember, these amendments will change the Texas Constitution and should not be taken lightly.
Ask yourself the following questions about each amendment:
Will the amendment have a direct impact on future taxation, either positively or negatively?
Does this amendment impact all taxpayers/voters? Even if I will not directly feel the effects of the amendment, is it important to the local constituents?
Does this amendment have specific time limits or will it make permanent changes?
Will this amendment set new appropriations, meaning it will be funded from new taxes imposed on us? Or will it be funded out of surplus tax dollars that have already been collected?
Considering the current inflation rate, property tax rates, and the state of the economy, is this the best use of Texas funds at this time?
Please spend some time researching, reading, and praying about the best choices before you vote.
The Republican Reporter will issue a special Election Edition prior to the polls opening that will include information on the November races specific to Montgomery County.