Constitutional Amendments

In theory the election this November is non-partisan, we’ll have mayors, city council and special utility districts seats on the ballot as well as ten constitutional amendments. Most of the candidates will avoid using partisan labels as is appropriate for these races. The amendments proposed for the Texas constitution are non-partisan in as much as they passed the legislature with the votes at least a large fraction of each party.

The League of Women Voters and others publish non-partisan guides to the constitutional amendments, you can find them and the candidates on your ballot at Vote411.org. Our own state representative, John Kuempel, included the amendments and the state legislature’s approved pros and cons on the last page of the missive he mailed to voters a week or so ago.

I can only support Amendment 2 and 10. Amendment 2 provides for the Texas Water Board to issuing bonds to provide financial assistance in developing water projects in economically depressed areas that would otherwise be unable to provide adequate resources for their citizens. Amendment 10 would allow law enforcement animal handlers to take ownership of their service animals when those animals are retired leaving them in the hands of people they have come to know, love, and trust rather than the current process of auctioning the animal to the highest bidder. The auctions only generate a few thousand dollars a year and it seems unnecessary and inhumane to take the animal away from the only family it has known for many years in the last years of its life.

Amendment 3 is designed to allow yet another property tax exemption, this time for property damaged in hurricanes and similar instances. As it stands now if the property is that badly damaged its assessed value will be decreased and therefore the taxes lowered anyway.

Amendment 4 is a big no. The stated purpose is to prohibit the imposition of a state income tax. First state law already does that, as it requires a vote of the citizens to start taxing “natural persons”. The real kicker and reason to vote no is that passage of this proposition changes the language of state law to prohibit an income tax on “individuals”. To most of us such a difference of phrasing seems innocuous but in the legal world, that change is very significant as corporations are treated as “individuals” which means that Amendment 4 prohibits an income tax on corporations whereas current law does not. That’s why state law provides for what is known as the Franchise Tax which Republicans have been trying to kill by increments since the day it passed.

This week I received a mailer on Amendment 5 pushing to dedicate sales tax revenue from the sale of sporting goods to the state parks system. I’m fundamentally opposed to dedicated taxes as it hamstrings legislators and prevents them from addressing budget problems, particularly when the economy suddenly drops like it did in 2011 when the state cut 6% from the education budget. Amendment 5 would just make that situation worse.

Amendment 9 authorizes another tax exemption, this time for the wealthy and big businesses that stock significant amounts of precious metals, gold and silver among others. Right now those precious metals are eligible for property taxes so if they were to be exempted your community may find the need to increase your property taxes in order to make up the difference.

There’s not enough space to cover the rest, all I can say is that in my opinion you would be best served by voting no to all but 2 and 10.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - October 18, 2019