More Endorsements: NO on Props 8, 18 and 22
By Byron LaMasters
As promised, here are some more endorsements regarding the upcoming constitutional election on September 13th. Early voting started today. For a list of Early voting locations in Travis County, go here (PDF file). For early voting locations in Dallas, go here.
Prop 8 will read:
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a person to take office without an election if the person is the only candidate to qualify in an election for that office.
I don't like the idea of cancelling elections in any circumstance, even if it's uncontested. What about write-in candidates? Some argue that this would save money. If Republican majority were really interested in saving money with elections, they would have held this constitutional election on the first Tuesday in November when Houston is having their mayoral election. That would have saved all of the voting locations in Houston from having to pay for an extra election. But I can only conclude that Texas Republicans want to discourage voting. That's why they're holding this election in September when most people aren't thinking about voting, and that's why we have Prop 8. We endorse a NO Vote on Prop 8.
I oppose Prop 18 for the same reasons. It reads:
The constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to permit a person to assume an office of a political subdivision without an election if the person is the only candidate to qualify for an election for that office
We endorse a NO Vote on Prop 18.
And here is Prop 22:
When a public official enters active military duty, they must leave the office they hold. Proposition 22 would allow officials to retain their offices while in the military and allows the appointment of temporary replacements.
It seems nice and all. But who gets to appoint a temporary replacement? I might support an amendment that would allow the public official on active military duty to choose a temprorary replacement for him/herself. But the amendment fails to make that indication. I wouldn't want a Democrat on active military duty to be "temporarily replaced" by someone appointed by Gov. Perry (for example). So, while I think this prop has good intentions, I believe that it's flawed. If a public official is unable to serve for any reason, they ought to resign (I'm sure I'll get someone trying to draw a parallel to the Texas 11, here. My state senator Gonzalo Barrientos is serving the majority of his constituents just fine). Again, we endorse a NO Vote on Prop 22.
Anyway, here are the BOR endorsements so far: YES on 11, NO on 3, 8, 12, 18 and 22.
Posted by Byron LaMasters at August 28, 2003 07:39 PM
| TrackBack
EXCUSE??????
--------------------------
>When a public official enters active military duty, >they must leave the office they hold. Proposition 22 >would allow officials to retain their offices while >in the military and allows the appointment of >temporary replacements.
--------------------------
I thought is was FEDERAL law, that you could not hold any office in government, and serve in the military at the same time.
I can not reacll the exact language, but to paraphse, it seems like 'any position of responsability or that receives renumeration'
I don't live in Texas, but if my state deliberatly tried to slip amendments through out side an election cycle, I would have to vote aginst every single one, just on the knowledge that if they had any merits, they would not be tring to hide them off season.
MrTek