Part 3: Texas Constitutional Amendments on the November Ballot
This is the final article in a three-part series and covers Propositions 6, 8, 10, 13, and 14. Click here to read an article covering all of the propositions in ballot order.
September 22, 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: Part 3
This is the final article in a three-part series and covers Propositions 6, 8, 10, 13, and 14. Click here to read an article covering all of the propositions in ballot order.
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.”
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 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.”
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? This is a tough one to call and one every voter will have to decide.
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.
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.
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)
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.