This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Today and tomorrow, Burnt Orange Report will be providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 4: Establishing the National Research University Fund
"To enable [our] emerging research universities in Texas to achieve national prominence, this amendment would establish a new National Research University Fund. The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University would not be eligible to receive money from this fund." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
YES. "A valiant attempt to provide potential research funding to institutions other than the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M, in the hopes of eventually expanding the number of major research universities statewide. Good luck, since we don't fund the ones we have."
El Paso Times:
YES. "In UTEP's case, it could help the university in its quest for Tier 1 status. Best of all, the National Research University Fund would be funded by transferring the balance of the Higher Education Fund to the NRUF -- no burden to taxpayers."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
YES. "Texans have to be getting tired of lists that show their state ranking way behind others, especially when it comes to education. In the Nov. 3 constitutional amendment election, they have a chance to start making things right, at least in one crucial way."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
NO. "Research conducted in the private market is efficient and effective and doesn't involve the use of billions of tax dollars. Moreover, the past has shown that research-oriented universities are more expensive for students and provide a lower-quality education, as professors spend less time in the classroom and more time conducting research projects."
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. "There's no secret that increasing the number of top-tier universities has been among my biggest priorities since I took office nearly three years ago. I'm very excited that Texas will have the chance to take such a big step toward this critical goal next month."
These posts will continue throughout tomorrow. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Today and tomorrow, Burnt Orange Report will be providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 3: Allowing State Enforcement of Uniform Property Appraisal Standards
"This proposition would ... require that administrative and judicial enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for proerty tax appraisal be rprescribed by general law enacted by the Texas Legislature. It would delete the existing requirement that enforcement of these appraisal procedures originate in the county where the tax is imposed." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
YES. "but trivial. If constitutional authorization is needed for uniform standards, the government's doing it wrong."
El Paso Times:
YES. "Prop. 3 would establish uniform appraisal standards statewide."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
NO. "Call this one the Big Government Amendment. Prop 3 says that the mostly county-based central appraisal districts have not done a good job and that the Legislature should take over. As if letting lawmakers big-foot their way through it every two years would solve any problems that the current system has."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
YES. "It would allow appraisal standards to be enforced by direct action against appraisal districts, rather than relying on penalties against school districts. Since state funding to school districts is partially based on local property value, it's unfair to allow values to be determined differently in different counties."
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. "Hopefully, this will reduce the wide variations in the way appraisal districts set property tax values."
These posts will continue throughout today and tomorrow. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting is on for the Constitutional Amendments election. Today and tomorrow, Burnt Orange Report will be providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the table below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse. Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. For more on the Amendment process, see the post on Amendment 1.
Proposition 2: Requiring Appraisal of Residence Homesteads Based on Homestead Value
"Residence homesteads throughout the state have experienced increasing appraisal values, in some instances more than 200 percent in one year, especially if the property is not covered by zoning regulations. ... This amendment authorizes the legislature to require that a residence be appraised only on the basis of the property's value as a residence, regardless of what the highest and best use of the property may be. It would only apply to residential homesteads, not to secondaryhomes or investment properties." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
NO. "Just another backdoor way to slash taxes on valuable property, thereby undermining the public schools and other community needs."
El Paso Times:
YES. "These would help partially reform the out-of-control residential appraisal system."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
NO. "It sounds good, but there's no logical reason why someone who can sell their property for a higher value (say, for a pending commercial development) shouldn't be taxed according to fair market value. The appraisal appeals process is designed to rectify special cases that fall outside of this general rule ... There's no good reason to use a constitutional amendment meat cleaver to accomplish that task."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
YES. "This is a property rights and taxpayer protection issue. ... This is key to homeowners to keep their property from being taxed at a higher rate in some urban areas where the land might be more valuable as a shopping mall or other enterprise."
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. "This stops appraisal districts from appraising a homeowner's property based on the value that it'd have as, say, a shopping mall or office building."
These posts will continue throughout today and tomorrow. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
This post is from Burnt Orange Report's coverage of the 2009 Constitutional Amendment election. For coverage of the 2011 Constitutional Amendment election, CLICK HERE.
Early voting starts today for the Constitutional Amendments election. Turnout in this election will likely be abysmally low, and most voters who do show up won't necessarily know what they're voting on, what it means, and why it's proposed as an amendment to our state constitution.
Today and tomorrow, Burnt Orange Report will be providing some information about the 11 propositions on the ballot. Composed of non-partisan, partisan, and editorial board endorsements, our aim is to give a broad sense of how different Texas entities perceive these amendments. In the tables below, we've compiled their yea, nay, or no-endorse, Sources are all linked at the bottom. Friday, BOR will issue our official endorsements on some or all of these amendments. So while I'm a huge fan of "vote early, vote often!" if you want to be informed, consider waiting a day or four.
Background on Constitutional Amendments: The Legislature proposes these amendments in joint resolutions in the House and Senate. They must pass each body by a two-thirds vote, and cannot be vetoed by the governor. The ballot wording of the amendment is specified in the joint resolution itself. The amendments, if approved by the majority of voters, take effect immediately following the official vote canvass, unless a later date is specified in the resolution. Examples of resolutions passed in 2007 include cancer funding, record votes in the Legislature, and property tax exemptions for work vehicles. For a truly comprehensive look at the amendments and arguments for and against them, I highly recommend the House Research Organization's voter guide (PDF). It doesn't endorse, but gives very solid background on each amendment.
Proposition 1: Authorizing Local Financing To Buy Buffer Areas Near Military Installations
"Currently, municipalities and counties do not have a method to raise the revenue needed to acquire land to provide a buffer zone or open space to prevent encroachment from development, or to fund the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of adjacent military installations." --League of Women Voters Guide
Source:
Endorsement:
Austin Chronicle:
NO. "We've had quite enough of state-subsidized militarism (and the Lege didn't even bother to authorize the bonds). Let the bases rub up against the neighborhoods where they live."
El Paso Times:
YES. "Care would have to be taken to ensure that governments didn't use this power to unnecessarily raise property taxes, particularly in these tough economic times."
Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
YES. "Relations between a military base and its surrounding community can be love-hate, especially when high-performance jets rattle windows during takeoffs or landings. ... Voter approval would give cities and counties another tool to encourage compatible land use: the ability to issue bonds and notes to buy buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to bases."
Houston Tea Party Patriots:
No Endorsement.
Sen. Kirk Watson's "Watson Wire:"
YES. "I voted for [it] in the Senate".
These posts will continue throughout today and tomorrow. Endorsements by the Burnt Orange Report staff will follow on Friday.
