Constitutional Amendment Election, November 3, 2009
Posted: Thursday, September 10th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
By: San Antonio Tea Party
There is a Texas Constitutional Amendment Election coming up on November 3, 2009. The San Antonio Tea Party encourages you to get informed on the issues and make your voice heard. Off year elections are notorious for low voter turnouts. So if you don’t want to wake up on November 4th and say “How did that pass?” then you need to get involved.
Here are some important dates that Texas voters should be aware of:
Constitutional Amendment Election, November 3, 2009
First Day to Apply for Ballot by Mail:
September 4, 2009
Last Day to Register to Vote:
October 5, 2009 (moves to next business day, Monday)
First Day of Early Voting:
October 19, 2009 (17th day before election day falls on a Saturday, first day moves to next business day)
Last Day to Apply for Ballot by Mail:
(Received, not postmarked) October 27, 2009
Last Day of Early Voting:
October 30, 2009
What Proposition 1 Says:
HJR 132 (History of HJR 132)
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.”
What Proposition 1 Means:
(HJR 132)
HJR 132 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow a municipality or a county to issue bonds and notes to finance the purchase of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to military installations. The buffer areas would be used to prevent encroachment or to construct roadways utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation. The municipality or county may pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues for repayment of the bonds or notes.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.”
What Proposition 2 Says:
HJR 36-1 (History of HJR 36-1)
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”
What Proposition 2 Means:
(HJR 36 – #1)
HJR 36 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide for the taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead, regardless of whether the property may have a higher value if it were used for other purposes.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”
What Proposition 3 Says:
HJR 36-3 (History of HJR 36-3)
“The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”
What Proposition 3 Means:
(HJR 36 – #3)
HJR 36 would amend the constitution to require the legislature to provide for the administration and enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”
What Proposition 4 Says:
HJR 14-2 (History of HJR 14-2)
“The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.”
What Proposition 4 Means:
(HJR 14 – #2)
HJR 14 would amend the constitution to establish the national research university fund to provide a source of funding that will enable emerging research universities in this state to develop into major research universities. The amendment would require the legislature to dedicate state revenue to the fund and to transfer the balance of the existing higher education fund to the national research university fund. This amendment would further require the legislature to establish the criteria by which a state university may become eligible to receive and use distributions from the fund.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.”
What Proposition 5 Says:
HJR 36-2 (History of HJR 36-2)
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.”
What Proposition 5 Means:
(HJR 36 – #2)
HJR 36 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow for a single appraisal review board for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated reviews of tax appraisals.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.”
What Proposition 6 Says:
HJR 116 (History of HJR 116)
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.”
What Proposition 6 Means:
(HJR 116)
HJR 116 would amend the constitution to authorize the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds, subject to certain constitutional limits, for the purpose of selling land and providing home or land mortgage loans to veterans of the state.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans ’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.”
What Proposition 7 Says:
HJR 127 (History of HJR 127)
“The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.”
What Proposition 7 Means:
(HJR 127)
HJR 127 would amend the constitution to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.”
What Proposition 8 Says:
HJR 7 (History of HJR 7)
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.”
What Proposition 8 Means:
(HJR 7)
HJR 7 would amend the constitution to authorize the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans’ hospitals in this state.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.”
What Proposition 9 Says:
HJR 102 (History of HJR 102)
“The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.”
What Proposition 9 Means:
(HJR 102)
HJR 102 would define what is a state-owned public beach. The public, individually and collectively, would have an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The amendment would authorize the legislature to enact laws to protect these rights.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.”
What Proposition 10 Says:
HJR 85 (History of HJR 85)
“The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”
What Proposition 10 Means:
(HJR 85)
HJR 85 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide that members of the governing board of an emergency services district may serve terms not to exceed four years.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”
What Proposition 11 Says:
HJR 14-1 (History of HJR 14-1)
“The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”
What Proposition 11 Means:
(HJR 14 – #1)
HJR 14 would amend the constitution to provide that the taking of private property for public use (“eminent domain”) is authorized only if it is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, its political subdivisions, the public at large, or by entities granted the power of eminent domain, or for the removal of urban blight. The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or to increase tax revenues. The amendment would also limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.
The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature ’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”
For additional material on these amendments please go to http://www.lwvtexas.org/2009VG/2009CAVG%5BFINAL%5D.pdf
You can read the proposed amendments at the Texas Secretary Of States site:
Ballot Language and Order for the November 3rd, 2009, Constitutional Amendment Election:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2009novballotlang.shtml
Explanatory Statements for the November 3rd, 2009, Constitutional Amendment Election:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2009novballotexp.shtml
Tags: Ad Valorem Tax, Buffer Areas, Business Day, Constitutional Amendment, Early Voting, Encroachment, Important Dates, Mail, Military Installation, Military Installations, Municipality, October 19, October 27, Open Spaces, Roadways, Tax Increment Financing, Tax Revenues, Tea Party, Texas Voters, Voter Turnouts
San Antonio Tea Party
This article is really fantastic. thank you.
Constitutional Amendment Election, November 3, 2009
This is great. Really nice post. Very Informative and helpful post. thank you.
Constitutional Amendment Election, November 3, 2009
I know it’s too late to matter for this election, but for future reference, the Texas Legislative Council Analyses of Proposed Amendments was quite helpful. From the introduction, it contains “ballot, the ballot language, an analysis, and the text of the joint resolution
proposing the amendment. The analysis includes background information and a summary of comments made about each proposed constitutional amendment by supporters and by opponents.”
See the pdf file here: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubsconamend/analyses09/analyses09.pdf
I found this document at the website of the Texas Secretary of State, see here: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/whatisontheballot.shtml
Hope that helps for future education.
I am now more confused than ever about how to vote. It seems the amendments are written in such a way that they are double speak and are not what they seem to be – or are they? Can someone really simplify this? I am not in favor of paying the government anything more, having them grab land, but I am in favor of anything that will help vets because they have served our country to protect us against all odds and despite what is going on at home to take away our freedom.
To the SATP,
All due respect for what you are doing however:
In response to #2 above, your organization should have never chosen to be a registered non-profit of the US.
This allows them to control you to an extremely advantageous degree.
If the more expensive option of choosing \"for profit\" status is opted for, the Govt. has much less control,
hence,
\"no pain, no gain.\"
This is everything you ever wanted to know about Rick Perry and his land grabbing tactics: http://www.perryfacts.com/trans_texas_corridor
Mr. Douthitt,
Prop #3 mandates a new structure to administer and enforce an ad valorum tax. With that in mind I interpret Prop #2 as establishing a new ad valorum tax. The way Prop #2 is written it seems to put a limit on an existing tax. Do you want a new state tax knowing Obama wants tax us until we give up and quit working.
? I’m still interested in the Ad velorum tax proposition @– is it an improvement? or a potential problem..? sounds like an improvement- providing for protection from being taxed as commercial property if a home is in/reclassified commercial property- and the taxing agency wants to tax it for what it ‘could’ be used for..
Prop 11 looks innocent, but ask yourself what is a \\"entities granted the power of eminent domain under law\\" other than any organization the legislature designates… Sorry, but I don\\\’t trust their judgement and I can see money changing hands to get the authority to seize property by businesses and foreign interests…. If they change the language, I\\\’d vote for it only if they specify in advance rather than designate behind my back….
Mr Matthews,
You might want to read Proposition 10 again. It would lengthen the term of an ESD board member from 2 years to 4 years.
ADMIN EDIT: THE OPINIONS HERE ARE THE VIEWS OF THE WRITER ONLY. THE SAN ANTONIO TEA PARTY IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE SPECIFIC RECOMENDATIONS UNDER IRS RULES.
Somebody asked for opinions w/comments as to effect on liberty. Here you go (in Prop # order):
1. Government buys more real estate, spends more money. Bad. Nothing urgent to require more government.
2. Good. Puts a cap on taxation. People live in homes that are probably more valuable if they were used as businesses. This confines the tax value to the value as a home, even though the tax value would be higher if it was assessed for its commercial potential.
3. Bad. Uniform standards of appraisal at the state level take away local appraisers\\\’ accountability. When you don\\\’t like what they do, they point their finger to Austin and say, \\"Don\\\’t blame me.\\" It leaves less flexibility and less accountability on your most-local officials.
4. Tough call. More money to widen the scope of research activities are universities will be able to conduct. This costs more money. I like education, but on this one, I feel taxed enough already, so I am against. Until they shrink government, I will not support expansion in any areas.
5. Probably insignificant for most. This applies when your property is located in two appraisal districts. It establishes a single body to establish value, rather than each having their own discretion. I\\\’ve not heard any horror stories on this, requiring an urge to make this change, but that doesn\\\’t mean there are not any horror stories. Hard to give an opinion. Of course, we will have a whole new set of government officials added to the dole.
6. Bad. Issuing bonds so the Veteran Land Board can assist veterans to purchase homes. I am thankful for the service of our veterans, but this service, IMO, does not grant them a free pass from the same market pressures the rest of us face.
7. Okay. I see no reason why an officer of our guard or militia ought not to be able to run for, and hold, another public office, such as state representative or governor.
8. Bad. Setting up mechanisms for the state to spend more money, by spending that money on veteran\\\’s hospitals. Again, I am thankful for the service of our veterans, but there is no reason why they should not have to live like the rest of us after they serve.
9. Bad. While, technically, you are supposed to fully grasp the risk that, when you buy a beach home, it may one day, due to erosion of the beach, be positioned within a setback the state claims. When in this setback, the state claims a right to have you demolish your home so people can hike and bike down the beach. The state claims you are not entitled to compensation. You just lose your investment and your home. Now, I know you are supposed to \\"know\\" this, but it is technical, and I don\\\’t think the everage citizen has the ability to appreciate the degree of risk of loss here. Better to limit the state\\\’s authority.
10. Term limits = good. As a \\"free market\\" kind of guy, I never thought I\\\’d say this, but I have come to the conclusion that if our clown politicians go into office knowing they\\\’ll be gone before long, there is less potential for corruption and influence-peddling.
11. Good. This is designed to take the steam out of the US Supreme Court decision that held it is okay for the government to condemn property in order to turn it over to private developers. Basically, this was being done because new developments would result in higher property tax revenues. So, the developers would \\"promise\\" more tax money to the government, if the government would go in and condemn the land for them. That is ludicrous! The proposed Constitutional limit is a good thing.
ADMIN EDIT: THE OPINIONS HERE ARE THE VIEWS OF THE WRITER ONLY. THE SAN ANTONIO TEA PARTY IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE SPECIFIC RECOMENDATIONS UNDER IRS RULES.
BASIC VOTING RULE OF THUMB #1:
If there is not an absolute, overwhelming, conclusive, incontrovertible and cogent reason to vote FOR a proposed constitutional amendment, then vote AGAINST it.
====
Gina thinks that even the above analysis is still somewhat unclear and I agree.
So, I’ll try to simplify it even further. Some still need more research. While I can’t tell you how to vote, here’s my take… so far… You decide…
Prop. 1: Allows government entities to acquire more land.
Prop. 2: “Could” lead to lower property taxes on homesteads near commercial developments. ALLOWS, but does not appear to REQUIRE appraisals to be based upon the value of a home and not the hypothetical commercial value of the property.
Prop. 3: “Attempts” to standardize property tax appraisals among taxing entities.
Prop. 4: Creates funding for development of emerging TX universities, but with strings.
Prop. 5: “Allows” for efficiencies, by combining adjoining appraisal districts.
Prop. 6: “Appears” to make it easier for vets to acquire land, mortgages, etc.
Prop. 7: Allows state Guard members and other troops to hold civil office.
Prop. 8: Allows state to contribute resources to help establish and operate TX VA hospitals. I don’t know if there are strings attached.
Prop. 9: Gives state control over more land – beaches – under the guise of protecting public access to beaches. I don’t know if or why this may or may not be needed.
Prop. 10: Appears to set term limits on emergency services boards – I don’t know what limits may or may not currently be in place. Keep in mind that propositions that appear, on the surface, to impose term limits, are often disguised ways to extend limits. I don’t know if this is one of those. This needs a lot more research.
Prop. 11: This would prevent Texas from taking land from one private entity, under the color of “eminent domain,” to give it to another private entity (as in Kelo v New London). For example, this amendment would severely cripple the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) initiative, since the TTC likely cannot survive without confiscating millions of acres of private property and giving that property to Spanish company, Cintra. Your vote on this one will probably be dependent largely upon your position on eminent domain to effect private transfer of ownership.
I hope that this helps.
Below is a link to an interesting discussion concerning the proposed amendments.
http://theanonymousamerican.com/index.php/our-articles/36-news/111-texas-proposed-constitutional-amendments
Dave, the League of Women Voters used to be a viable source for unbiased analysis of political issues and candidates. But the operative phrase in that statement is “used to be”.
For many years, the League managed to remain rather unbiased (though left leaning). However, with their recent position on Obamacare, that is no longer the case. Their totally biased and often false statements about Obamacare has lifted any veil of objectivity that might have remained, revealing them as just another closet socialist organization.
You might want to read their analysis. But, take it with a grain of salt. Use phrases in their analysis as Google search terms for your own research.
The League of Women Voters is no longer to be trusted.
I witnessed Rick Perry’s goons work all session long to weaken the Constitutional Amendment known as Prop 11. It has a weak definition of public use, doesn’t require the state to offer landowners good faith offers of fair market value for their land (requiring the landowner to pay expensive legal fees to get a fair price which most can’t do so they get pillaged), doesn’t reimburse landowners for diminished access to their land when the govt slices it in half, etc.
Even the Farm Bureau calls this amendment a weak attempt at eminent domain reform. TURF knows it’s weak and it’s frankly an insult to call this a protection of private property rights! We’re going to advocate we vote it down and insist on TRUE eminent domain reform and strong private property protections in the next session when we’ll hopefully have a new Governor.
When over half the states have changed their constitutions to protect them from the Kelo case (Supreme Court decision in 2006 that allowed the government to take private property for “economic development” since government can get more tax money from a hotel than from your house), Texas can thank Rick Perry and his sale of Texas land to Spain for his toll road – Trans Texas Corridor boondoggles for Texas’ failure to have genuine protection from eminent domain abuse.
Proposition 11 is extremely important.
Back in state LA, we had a situation where E.D. was used to buy private property (houses) using low appraisals, and resold the land to apartment complexes.
They used the excuse that apartment complexes would bring in more tax revenue.
Either way, E.D. is supposed to only be used for infrastructure, and it appears that limit isn\’t set in stone in some places.
I applaud the website for making unbiased translations of the proposals.
Reading through, it simplifies the language without giving a nod or shake.
Good Job.
FYI. The Texas League of Women Voters has a guide on the amendments that also includes “arguments for” and “arguments against” for each amendment. Link is
http://www.lwvtexas.org/votersintro.php
The SATP can’t tell you how to vote on things due to IRS restrictions. But we’ll look into what further info we can give people on these subjects. Thanks for your support.
Is there anyone there that can explain these amendments in plain language? Which ones are going to take away more of our freedom? Which ones are PATRIOT amendments? Could someone put these on a “left/right” or “libertarian/totalitarian” scale or map? Something like the NOLAN chart http://www.nolanchart.com/faq/faq8.php seen here would be VASTLY HELPFUL.
Also, I need to register to vote asap. The Texas SOS site has something wrong with it and it won’t finish the process. I’ve tried several times. Anyone know what’s wrong with it?
Thanks for doing all that you do. I really believe we are waking up, FINALLY! –Gina Hern