Constitutional Amendments, How we see it!

Early voting began October 23rd and runs until November 3rd, with election day on November 7th for Texans to have their say on seven proposed Texas Constitutional amendments that were passed by the 85th Texas Legislature. Below are the propositions with ballot language, pros & cons, synopsis, links to the enabling bills and our recommendations. We encourage everyone to do their own research and vote on these proposals.

We fully understand that most of the proposals, if not all, will pass with a high percentage, as in previous Constitution elections. We believe that's simply because of low voter turnout and voters not being completely informed on the issues or not caring enough about the issues. We encourage you to engage your friends and neighbors and encourage them to exercise their Constitutional rights.


Proposition 1 - Enabling Legislation HJR 21  Recommended Vote *Yes

“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization for less than the market value of the residence homestead and harmonizing certain related provisions of the Texas Constitution.”

This amendment, would change an amendment approved by Texas voters in 2011 and would authorize property tax exemptions for certain partially disabled veterans or their surviving spouses whose homes were donated to them by charity for less than market value. Proposition 1 would also include surviving spouses as long as they do not remarry.

• Supporters say disabled veterans deserve breaks
• Opponents urge focus on reducing property taxes for everyone rather than exempting specific categories of people, regardless of how deserving, and creating higher taxes for others.

More background:

In 2007 a constitutional amendment passed exempting all or part of property taxes for veterans having 100% disability.

In 2009 a LAW passed exempting 100% of property taxes for veterans with 100% disability that was "service related".

In 2011 a constitutional amendment passed exempting surviving spouses from property taxes of a 100% disabled veteran, but only for those in which the veteran died on or before Jan 1 2010.

In 2013, a constitutional amendment passed allowing the exemption amount to follow the surviving spouse to a new homestead as long as the spouse didn't remarry. (Conceivably, a young person, as long as they never remarry could have a lifetime of avoiding property taxes)

In 2015, the "date-of-death" restriction from 2011 was removed, paving the way for all surviving spouses to enjoy the property tax exemption. In addition, any surviving spouses that move to Texas also receive the exemption. (For those taxing districts with higher population of disabled veterans, the State subsidizes these cities with taxes from other districts)

*VOCAL believes the ultimate goal is to see the property tax abolished. We have much respect for those that sacrifice in our Armed Services and believe there is allowance for supporting homestead exemptions, payments based on the market price of the property, however, shrinking the tax base coupled with tax abatement's to businesses by municipalities creates more burden on fewer and fewer tax payers.  Because Prop 1 is extending benefits to a select few and clarifying language from previous passed amendments and laws already in place We reluctantly recommend a YES vote.


Proposition 2 - Enabling Legislation SJR 60   Recommended Vote *NO

“The constitutional amendment to establish a lower amount for expenses that can be charged to a borrower and removing certain financing expense limitations for a home equity loan, establishing certain authorized lenders to make a home equity loan, changing certain options for the refinancing of home equity loans, changing the threshold for an advance of a home equity line of credit, and allowing home equity loans on agricultural homesteads.”

This amendment lowers certain limits and raises others on home equity loans.

• Supporters say it will make it easier and more affordable to get an equity loan and places caps on certain fees.
• Opponents say Prop 2 could raise costs for borrowers and decrease borrower protections.

*VOCAL believes Prop 2 could potentially erase constitutional protections for homeowners which were carefully negotiated when home equity loans were first authorized. It would disguise the potential for lender fee increases because the amendment excludes from the calculation of the fee cap certain items that generally represent the highest up‐front costs ‐ that of third‐party appraisals, surveys, title insurance, and title examination reports. Lenders would have greater incentive to increase their own origination fees despite the two percent limit and Prop 2 increases the prospective profits from loan origination fees, and would encourage improvident lending.  Lenders could later sell badly performing loans on the secondary market – such was the behavior that contributed to the 2007‐2009 recession. VOCAL is also concerned with the enabling language "establishing certain authorized lenders". Will this mean, only financial institutions approved by the Texas government have this opportunity to service homeowners? VOCAL recommends a NO vote.


Proposition 3 - Enabling Legislation SJR 34  Recommended Vote *Yes

“The constitutional amendment limiting the service of certain officeholders appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate after the expiration of the person’s term of office.”

Members of most boards and commissions appointed by the Governor serve 6-year terms, but the Constitution currently requires appointees to serve until their successors are in office.This amendment would eliminate “holdover” appointments by removing officeholders from their positions at the conclusion of their term rather than allowing them to stay on until their position has been filled through appointment.

• Supporters say it will keep Governor appointees from staying in office long after their terms expire.
• Opponents say it could leave too many vacancies.

*While VOCAL holds that term limits are unconstitutional, the appointments by the Governor to hundreds of executive offices are not in violation , specifically for non-salaried positions, in which this amendment only applies. Further, if the removal of time limits on the appointments to non-salaried positions improves the efficient and just operation of the Texas government, then we recommend a Yes vote.


Proposition 4 - Enabling Legislation SJR 6  Recommended Vote *NO

“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to require a court to provide notice to the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute and authorizing the legislature to prescribe a waiting period before the court may enter a judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.”

This amendment would require courts to notify the Texas Attorney General if a case could impact the constitutionality of a state law.

• Supporters say this ensures that the state has an opportunity to defend against constitutional challenges to Texas law.
• Opponents say Prop. 4 will create longer wait times in constitutional court cases, prolong justice for Texans, and interfere with the state’s separation of powers.

*VOCAL believes this amendment could blur the lines between the 3 separate branches of Texas government and cause unwarranted delay in due process.  Many are not aware that the Texas AG is part of the Executive branch, not judicial. Prop 4 would increase the cost of due process to those initiating the court action. This amendment was passed as a law originally and then declared UNCONSTITIONAL. We believe Laws should be constitutional and uphold our God-given rights. Any challenge to the constitutionality of a law should be taken seriously and in an expeditious manner. VOCAL recommends a NO vote.

Note: Representatives Matt Rinaldi, Bricoe Cain, Jonathan Stickland, Tony Tinderholt and Senator Bob Hall voted against this legislation in the regular session.

Proposition 5 - Enabling Legislation HJR 100  Recommended Vote *NO

“The constitutional amendment on professional sports team charitable foundations conducting charitable raffles.”

This amendment would expand the definition of “professional sports team,” giving more organizations the ability to conduct “charitable raffles. Current definition of "sports teams" created in 2015 with the 84th legislative session include, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and MLS. Prop 5 is seeking to expand the definition to include, American Hockey League, East Coast Hockey League, American Assoc. of Independent Baseball, Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, Minor League Baseball, the NBA development league, National Women's Soccer League, NASCAR, United Soccer League, Major Arena Soccer League, Women's NBA, and any organization hosting a PGA event. It also removes the "CASH ONLY" purchase of raffle tickets and would allow "DEBIT CARD" purchases.

• Supporters say Prop. 5 would increase cash flow to nonprofit charities, especially in rural areas.
• Opponents fear this would expand a form of gambling and encourage other sports and non-sports groups to seek eligibility to hold raffles as well

*The original amendment was only recently passed in 2015 and didn't take effect until 2016.  There hasn’t been sufficient history since the 2015 amendment, to make an educated decision on these raffles and more time is needed. Government is not forcing anyone to participate, however there is a government cost to administer and police the “authorized” activity. VOCAL believes government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding who participates in charity in the first place. VOCAL recommends a NO vote

Note: Representatives Biedermann, Cain, Isaac, Lang, Leach, Rinaldi, Schaefer, Shaheen, Stickland, Swanson, Tinderholt, Zedler and Senators Birdwell, Burton, Hall, Hancock, Huffines, Taylor of Collin all voted against this legislation in the regular session.

Proposition 6 - Enabling Legislation SJR 1   Recommended Vote *NO

"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 first responder who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.”

This amendment would allow the Texas Legislature to provide a property tax exemption of the total appraised value of a homestead for surviving spouses of first responders killed or fatally injured in the line of duty, as long as the surviving spouse does not remarry. The exemption is allowed should the surviving spouse move and is retro-active to include all surviving spouses of deceased first responders. [The list of "first responders" includes: peace officers, paid probation officers, parole officers, paid jailer, organized police reserve or auxiliary unit, employees of the correctional institutions division, jailer or guard of a county jail, juvenile correction employee, employee of the Dept of Aging and Disability Services or Dept of State Health Services, individual certified by the Texas Commission on Fire Protection, an individual whose primaries duties are aircraft crash and rescue fire fighting, a member of a organized volunteer fire fighting unit, performs emergency medical services or operates an ambulance, a Chaplain for volunteer fire unit, law enforcement agency, or Texas Dept of Criminal Justice, a trainee for any of the positions listed above, an employee of DPS and deployed into field to assist law enforcement operations and employees of Texas Parks & Wildlife that assist/supports law enforcement.]

• Supporters say Prop. 6 would ensure families of fallen first responders, who have already suffered devastating loss, are not forced out of their homes by property taxes.
• Opponents urge focus on reducing property taxes for everyone rather than exempting specific categories of people, regardless of how deserving, and creating higher taxes for others.

* Although everyone wants to show gratitude to anyone who puts their life on the line in their work, whether it be for the government or private industry, increasing the tax burden on a shrinking number of homesteaders is not the answer. All property taxes should be abolished. This amendment does not allow all property owners to qualify for this tax exemption and again shrinks the tax base creating more burden on fewer and fewer tax payers. Texans should be concerned about the rampant growth in constituencies receiving property tax exemptions. These exemptions risk making Swiss cheese of the tax code, leaving taxpayers outside of the exceptions to pick up the cost. VOCAL recommends a NO vote

Proposition 7 - Enabling Legislation  HJR 37  Recommended Vote *Neutral

“The constitutional amendment relating to legislative authority to permit credit unions and other financial institutions to award prizes by lot to promote savings.”

This amendment would allow banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to conduct promotional activities such as “savings promotion raffles, encouraging persons who would otherwise not be inclined to save money. This amendment does expand the boundaries of who may offer raffles, where the Texas Constitution currently limits them to charity events and/or organizations.

• Supporters say: This amendment would give banks and credit unions the ability to host savings promotion raffles, also known as prize-linked savings accounts (PLSAs), which offer incentives to save rather than spend or gamble away earnings.
• Critics say: This amendment amounts to a carve-out for one industry to do a raffle and would be the only non-charitable raffle allowed in the state.

*VOCAL believes there are questions as to what business the state has in deciding such transactions that carry little to no risk for the consumer. Reportedly there is no cost to the consumer, just a business expense to the financial institution however; there will be additional government costs to administer and police this activity. While gambling is not condoned, freedom to conduct business without government interference is supported. VOCAL is Neutral on this amendment