I show my personal election preferences because friends and neighbors ask what they are. Each voter should make her / his own decisions. My preferences should be another piece of research in your decision making. Do your research. League of Women Voters and/or Community Impact Newspaper are sources. Please share with your friends and contacts.
· If you vote in person, even if you have had both shots, I suggest you wear your face mask.
· You may take handwritten notes with you. No cell phone notes. Pack your patience.
· Vote by darkening the oval FOR or AGAINST next to each proposition.
· If you do not understand the language of a proposition or you are not clear about the intent or there may be unintended consequences, a vote against is a “righteous” vote. It is better to vote against than not to vote.
The November 2nd ballot contains 8 amendments to the Texas Constitution and two 2 propositions for the City of Austin. More detailed discussion follows this summary:
Austin Prop A – Against - it is an overreach to have voters set staffing levels and budgets. That is the job of the city council and the city manager.
Deciding my vote on Prop A was hard because past Council actions caused APD staffing levels to decrease. I don’t have the exact number of officers who retired or resigned as a result of the vote in 2020, in addition to the delays in academy classes.
In my head and heart, I know, we elect people to the council to make sound policies and hire a city manager to implement policy through the various departments of the city. It is the role of the city manager and the department head, not the role of voters, to set staffing levels. Who will citizens hold accountable if this passes and unintended consequences come to pass?
Prop A dictates the number of city employees the city is mandated to hire and maintain.
Prop A is an overreach!
Austin Prop B – Against - The parkland swap. Central Maintenance Complex at Town Lake Metropolitan Park is designated as an industrial park in Texas. It is the only maintenance facility, I could locate with the ability to perform when needed, necessary emergency repairs within Central Austin.
What can the property be used for with the current industrial zoning? Where will the current facility, which needs 'industrial' zoning' be relocated? In case of an emergency what will be the additional travel time required to get to Central Austin? Where is there city property currently zoned 'industrial' where a new complex can be built? The far parts of the Eastern Crescent? Will funding for the yet to be developed Montopolis park be a option?
Too many unknowns in Prop B, I am voting NO.
State Constitution
Proposition #1 - FOR - Rodeo Austin was founded in 1938 in then what was far East Austin. It has been there ever since. Donations provide scholarships for youth, my daughter was a recipient back in the day, to become veterinarians', encourage future farmers and young people at HTU. The ability to conduct charitable raffles at the venue will increase their ability to provide scholarships.
HJR 143 - The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the professional sports team charitable foundations of organizations sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association or the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association to conduct charitable raffles at rodeo venues.”
Proposition #2 - FOR – As the population in the state increases, the impact is being felt in areas of counties where infrastructure is most needed.
HJR 99 - The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment authorizing a county to finance the development or redevelopment of transportation or infrastructure in unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted areas in the county.”
"A constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to authorize a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area within the county and to pledge for repayment of those bonds or notes increases in property tax revenues imposed on property in the area by the county. The Texas Constitution gives the legislature the power to authorize an incorporated city or town to issue such bonds or notes but does not expressly give the legislature the power to grant that same authority to counties. The proposed amendment also provides that a county that issues bonds or notes for transportation improvements may not pledge for the repayment of those bonds or notes more than 65 percent of the increases in ad valorem tax revenues each year, and a county may not use proceeds from the bonds or notes to finance the construction, operation, maintenance, or acquisition of rights-of-way of a toll road.
Proposition #3 - AGAINST - Political sub-divisions, cities and/or counties must have the ability to limit, in person religious services of faith communities or organizations during times of emergencies, in the interest of public safety.
The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”
SJR 27 proposes a constitutional amendment barring the State of Texas or a political subdivision from enacting, adopting, or issuing a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that prohibits or limits religious services. The proposed amendment would apply to religious services, including those conducted in churches, congregations, and places of worship, in the state by a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief.
Proposition #4 - For - “It seems that the change is to make it so that someone cannot be a Judge who has had their license suspended or revoked during the 10 year period before running for or being appointed as Judge.” From trusted legal sources.
The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.”
SJR 47 proposes a constitutional amendment changing certain eligibility requirements for a justice of the Supreme Court, a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge. The proposed amendment provides that a person is eligible to serve on the Supreme Court if the person, among other qualifications, is licensed to practice law in Texas; is a resident of Texas at the time of election; has been either a practicing lawyer licensed in Texas for at least ten years or a practicing lawyer licensed in Texas and a judge of a state court or county court established by the legislature for a combined total of at least ten years; and during that time has not had the person’s license to practice law revoked, suspended, or subject to a probated suspension. The same eligibility requirements would apply to a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals and to a justice of a court of appeals. The proposed amendment further provides that to be eligible for appointment or election as a district judge, a person must be a resident of Texas; be licensed to practice law in Texas; and have been a practicing lawyer or a judge of a court in Texas, or both combined, for eight years preceding the person’s election, during which time the person’s license to practice law has not been revoked, suspended, or subject to a probated suspension.
Proposition #5 - For - “This amendment seeks to offer more protection to current Judges running for re-election against people who are not sitting Judges. It is not currently in the constitution and is an addition. Sitting Judges fall under the purview of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and can be investigated by that commission for actions taken during a campaign. Non-judges are not subject to the rules and standards of the commission. This seeks to add a provision that would make all judicial candidates subject to the authority of the commission.” From Trusted Legal Sources
The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment providing additional powers to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with respect to candidates for judicial office.”
HJR 165 proposes a constitutional amendment allowing the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) to accept complaints or reports, conduct investigations, and take any other authorized action with respect to a candidate for a state judicial office. Currently, the Texas Constitution only permits the SCJC to take such actions as to persons holding a judicial office.
Proposition #6 - AGAINST – This issue does not belong in the Constitution. These are my questions and concerns - This may not be necessary if the person has a guardian of the person. What about the rights of other individuals living in private and/or state supported residences? What if there is no guardianship in place and the person does not have the intellectual capacity to make a designation? How would this be handled? Do the providers of the residential support services have rights to prohibit in-person visitation when the health and safety of others is at risk?
The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment establishing a right for residents of certain facilities to designate an essential caregiver for in-person visitation.”
SJR 19 proposes a constitutional amendment establishing that residents of certain facilities have the right to designate an essential caregiver with whom the facility may not prohibit in-person visitation. The proposed amendment would apply to a nursing facility, assisted living facility, intermediate care facility for individuals with an intellectual disability, residence providing home and community-based services, or state supported living center. The proposed amendment also would authorize the legislature to provide guidelines for these facilities to follow in establishing essential caregiver visitation policies and procedures.
Proposition #7 – For - Self evident. The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “The constitutional amendment to allow the surviving spouse of a person who is disabled to receive a limitation on the school district ad valorem taxes on the spouse’s residence homestead if the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person’s death.”
HJR 125 proposes a constitutional amendment permitting a person who is 55 years of age or older at the time of death of their spouse who is receiving a limitation on school district property taxes on their residence homestead on the basis of a disability to continue receiving the limitation while the property remains the surviving spouse’s residence homestead.
Proposition #8 - FOR - Self evident. The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot as follows: “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 member of the armed services of the United States who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.”
SJR 35 proposes a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the United States armed services who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty. The Texas Constitution provides a property tax exemption to the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services who is killed in action, but the current exemption does not include members of the military who die during their service due to injuries sustained that are not combat-related.