Elections on November 6, 2007 <\/p>\n
On Election Day, November 6, 2007, polls are open 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
\np.m. <\/p>\n
This email contains information that may be helpful in understanding
\nthe issues in the November 6th Election. I’ve included the text to
\nthe League of Women Voters Guide in the body of the email and links
\nto a PDF version. There is also a link to Key Texas Laws related to
\nVoting
\nhttp:\/\/www.governor.state.tx.us\/disabilities\/resources\/keylaws\/voting<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.lwvtexas.org<\/p>\n
The Text Version has a long introduction; however each Proposition
\ndoes have an argument for and against each Proposition. <\/p>\n
Frequently Asked Questions: (FAQs) have been compiled with the
\nNovember 6, 2007 Election in mind. <\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.sos.state.tx.us\/elections\/pamphlets\/faqs.shtml<\/p>\n
For a PDF version: League of Women Voters Guide to November 6, 2007 <\/p>\n
Elections: http:\/\/www.lwvtexas.org\/PDF%20Files\/2007%20CA%20VG.pdf<\/p>\n
(A long intro but bullets for and against are included in each
\nProposition) <\/p>\n
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TEXAS <\/p>\n
Non-Partisan. Really. <\/p>\n
Voters Guide <\/p>\n
2007 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ELECTION <\/p>\n
November 6, 2007 <\/p>\n
Early voting -October 22 through November 2 Election day – Polls open
\n7am to 7pm <\/p>\n
This Voters Guide is funded and published by the League of Women
\nVoters of Texas Education Fund, a 501(c)3 organization, to help
\ncitizens prepare to cast an informed vote. The League of Women Voters
\nEducation Fund works to encourage the active and informed
\nparticipation in government and to increase understanding of major
\npublic policy issues. This educational organization, associated with
\nthe League of Women Voters of Texas, operates exclusively for
\neducational purposes in the general areas of government and public
\npolicy, carrying out its objectives through research, publication of
\neducational materials, and other appropriate projects. Neither the
\nLeague of Women Voters of Texas nor the LWV-TX Education <\/p>\n
Fund supports or opposes any political party or candidate. The Voters
\nGuide and other helpful information are available online at the
\nLeague’s website: http:\/\/www.lwvtexas.org
\n. <\/p>\n
You may bring this Voters Guide into the voting booth.* <\/p>\n
QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTING IN TEXAS <\/p>\n
* You must be a citizen of the United States. <\/p>\n
* You must be at least 18 years old on the day of the election. <\/p>\n
* You must be registered to vote. <\/p>\n
* You must not have been declared mentally incompetent by a court. <\/p>\n
* You must not be on parole, probation, or in prison for a felony
\nconviction. <\/p>\n
* To vote in a given election, you must be registered to vote 30 days
\nbefore that election. October 9th is the deadline to register to vote
\nin this election. <\/p>\n
EARLY VOTING <\/p>\n
Early voting begins on October 22 and ends on November 2 for this
\nelection in counties over 100,000. Early voting is not mandated in
\nsmaller counties, but may be offered. Check with your County Clerk or
\nElection Administrator for locations and hours of early voting. You
\nmay also vote early by mail by requesting an application to be mailed
\nto you from your County Clerk, or by filling out a form online at
\nwww.sos.state.tx.us. Click on Elections and Voter Information. <\/p>\n
VOTER INFORMATION <\/p>\n
Voting Certificate <\/p>\n
* Once you are registered, you will receive a voter registration
\ncertificate which you should present at the polling place in order to
\nvote. <\/p>\n
* If you have lost or misplaced your certificate, you may get a
\nreplacement from the voter registrar of your county. You may vote
\nwithout a certificate if your name appears on the list of registered
\nvoters for your precinct, and you can show some form of
\nidentification. <\/p>\n
* You must vote in the precinct of residence designated on your voter
\nregistration certificate on Election Day. You may vote at any early
\nvoting site in your county. <\/p>\n
* You will receive a new certificate every two years, in January of
\neven-numbered years, as long as your registration is not canceled. If
\nyou move, your new card will not be forwarded, and you must notify
\nyour county elections office to get a new certificate. The 2006-2007
\nvoter registration certificate is yellow. <\/p>\n
Moving Within the County <\/p>\n
* After moving, notify the county voter registrar in writing of your
\nnew address. <\/p>\n
* You may vote at your previous precinct if your registration has not
\nbeen cancelled or transferred to your new address, but only in county
\nor statewide elections. You must still reside in the same city
\nprecinct to vote there. You may fill out a change of address form
\nwhen you vote. <\/p>\n
Moving from One County to Another <\/p>\n
* If you move from one Texas county to another, you must re-register
\nin the county of your new residence. <\/p>\n
* You may be eligible to vote a limited ballot for 90 days after you
\nmove if your new registration is not yet effective, but only in
\nstatewide races. However, the limited ballot is available only during
\nearly voting, not on Election Day. <\/p>\n
Issues That Affect You <\/p>\n
TRANSPORTATION * FUNDING\/TAXES <\/p>\n
STUDENT LOANS * HEALTHCARE * PROPERTY <\/p>\n
*In 1995, the Texas law prohibiting use of printed materials, such as
\nthis Voters Guide, in the polling place was ruled unconstitutional
\n(Texas Election Code, Section 61.011) <\/p>\n
(c) 2007 League of Women Voters of Texas Education Fund <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 1 <\/p>\n
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS <\/p>\n
Texas voters have approved 440 amendments to the Texas Constitution
\nsince its adoption in 1876. An amendment is proposed in a joint
\nresolution that can originate in either house of the state
\nlegislature during a regular or special session. A joint resolution
\nspecifies the election date and may contain more than one amendment.
\nThe joint resolution must receive a vote of two-thirds of each house
\nbefore it is presented to the voters. The governor cannot veto a
\njoint resolution, although he may veto the enabling legislation,
\nwhich is a bill to enact the amendment if it is passed by voters. Not
\nall joint resolutions require enabling legislation. If the voters
\nreject an amendment, the legislature may resubmit it. <\/p>\n
The legislature prescribes the ballot language, and it is contained
\nin the joint resolution. Once the amendment is approved by both
\nhouses of the legislature, the Secretary of State writes the brief
\nexplanatory statement, which is approved by the Attorney General. The
\nSecretary of State also conducts a random drawing to assign each
\nproposition a ballot number. The constitution specifies that these
\nstatements be published twice in each newspaper in the state that
\nprints official notices, the first 50 to 60 days before the election,
\nand the second the following week. <\/p>\n
Enabling Legislation <\/p>\n
Many constitutional amendments require enabling legislation to ensure
\nthat the provisions of the amendment are enacted. Often this enabling
\nlegislation is passed by the Legislature in advance of the adoption
\nof the amendment itself. The effective date of the legislation is
\ncontingent on voter approval of the amendment. If the amendment is
\nrejected by the voters, then the enabling legislation does not take
\neffect. Amendments take effect when the official vote canvass
\nconfirms statewide voter approval, unless a later date is specified.
\nCheckboxes have been provided to save you time when casting your
\nballot. Simply check the box to indicate where you stand on each
\nissue. <\/p>\n
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS <\/p>\n
Texas voters have approved 440 amendments to the Texas Constitution
\nsince its adoption in 1876. An amendment is proposed in a joint
\nresolution that can originate in either house of the state
\nlegislature during a regular or special session. A joint resolution
\nspecifies the election date and may contain more than one amendment.
\nThe joint resolution must receive a vote of two-thirds of each house
\nbefore it is presented to the voters. The governor cannot veto a
\njoint resolution, although he may veto the enabling legislation,
\nwhich is a bill to enact the amendment if it is passed by voters. Not
\nall joint resolutions require enabling legislation. If the voters
\nreject an amendment, the legislature may resubmit it. <\/p>\n
The legislature prescribes the ballot language, and it is contained
\nin the joint resolution. Once the amendment is approved by both
\nhouses of the legislature, the Secretary of State writes the brief
\nexplanatory statement, which is approved by the Attorney General. The
\nSecretary of State also conducts a random drawing to assign each
\nproposition a ballot number. The constitution specifies that these
\nstatements be published twice in each newspaper in the state that
\nprints official notices, the first 50 to 60 days before the election,
\nand the second the following week. <\/p>\n
Enabling Legislation <\/p>\n
Many constitutional amendments require enabling legislation to ensure
\nthat the provisions of the amendment are enacted. Often this enabling
\nlegislation is passed by the Legislature in advance of the adoption
\nof the amendment itself. The effective date of the legislation is
\ncontingent on voter approval of the amendment. If the amendment is
\nrejected by the voters, then the enabling legislation does not take
\neffect. Amendments take effect when the official vote canvass
\nconfirms statewide voter approval, unless a later date is specified. <\/p>\n
Checkboxes have been provided to save you time when casting your
\nballot. Simply check the box to indicate where you stand on each
\nissue. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
The transfer would require costly changes in accounting,
\norganization, and management. Student tuition and fees would
\nincrease. <\/p>\n
* As part of the TTUS, ASU could lose its local identity and have
\nless autonomy. <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment providing for the continuation of the
\nconstitutional appropriation for facilities and other capital items
\nat Angelo State University on a change in the governance of the
\nuniversity. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
Currently the Texas Constitution lists Angelo State University (ASU)
\nin San Angelo, Texas, as a component of the Texas State University
\nSystem (TSUS), which also includes Texas State University- San
\nMarcos, Lamar University, Sam Houston State University, and Sul Ross
\nState University. Funding from the state of Texas is based on that
\ndetermination. <\/p>\n
The 2007 Texas legislature passed legislation for Angelo State
\nUniversity to change its status from TSUS supervision and become a
\npart of the Texas Tech University System (TTUS). This amendment would
\nreflect that change in the state constitution and allow the transfer
\nof facilities, funds and administration to occur. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* The transfer of ASU from TSUS to TTUS would expand educational
\nopportunities and offer more financial resources for ASU. <\/p>\n
* Being a part of the TTUS would give ASU a stronger regional
\npresence and would significantly boost student enrollment. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 2 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of $500
\nmillion in general obligation bonds to finance educational loans to
\nstudents and authorizing bond enhancement agreements with respect to
\ngeneral obligation bonds issued for that purpose. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
This proposed amendment would authorize the Legislature to allow the
\nTexas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to issue up to $500
\nmillion in general obligation bonds for college and university
\nstudents to use for their education. The THECB expects that the
\ncurrently authorized amount of $400 million will be exhausted by
\n2009. This amendment would increase the currently authorized amount
\nof $400 million by $100 million to help finance the student loans. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* Students will find higher education more affordable because this
\ntotally self-supporting loan program provides reliable funds at more
\nfavorable rates than most other sources. <\/p>\n
* Having a highly educated work force will help Texas attract 2 more
\nhigh paying jobs to the state. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* Even though this is a self-supporting program, the state backs the
\nbonds and is responsible for repayment if interest revenue is not
\nsufficient. <\/p>\n
* Students should always be concerned about the danger of borrowing
\nlarge amounts of money. Student loans could contribute significantly
\nto too much overall debt. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 3 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide
\nthat the maximum appraised value of a residence homestead for ad
\nvalorem taxation is limited to the lesser of the most recent market
\nvalue of the residence homestead as determined by the appraisal
\nentity or 110 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised
\nvalue of the residence homestead for the preceding tax year. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
Current law limits the rate at which a homestead can increase in
\nvalue for tax purposes to a maximum of 10 percent of the property’s
\nprevious appraised value for each tax year since the last appraisal.
\nHowever, a homeowner who has not had a reappraisal in several years
\ncan experience a substantially increased assessed value. Proposition
\n3 provides the legislature with the authority to limit the maximum
\nincrease in appraised value of a homestead to 10% in a tax year
\nregardless of how long has passed since the last reappraisal. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* This amendment would align the language in the Texas Constitution
\nwith the intent of the Legislature when it approved the 10 percent
\ncap on increases in homestead appraisal valuations in 1997. <\/p>\n
* The amendment would eliminate “sticker shock” while ensuring that
\nall taxpayers are treated equitably and would create a more
\ncomprehensible property tax system. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* Rather than protecting the taxpayers from unplanned tax increases,
\nthis provision would encourage taxing authorities to reappraise more
\nfrequently and to routinely increase the tax amount by the maximum
\namount (10 %) with each appraisal. <\/p>\n
* This bill is unnecessary because most of the large districts in
\nwhich property values increase at the greatest rates already appraise
\nproperties on an annual basis. Smaller appraisal districts trying to
\nappraise property more frequently would incur additional
\nadministrative costs which might not be offset by the increase in tax
\nrevenue. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 4 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment authorizing the issuance of up to $1
\nbillion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for
\nmaintenance, improvement, repair, and construction projects and for
\nthe purchase of needed equipment. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
The state needs funding for a number of maintenance, improvement,
\nrepair, and construction projects, and for the purchase of needed
\nequipment. This proposition would authorize the Texas Public Finance
\nAuthority to issue up to $1 billion in general obligation bonds. The
\nproceeds of the sale of these bonds would be used for projects that
\nhave been authorized by the legislature in the Appropriations Act. <\/p>\n
Some of the projects include deferred maintenance and asbestos
\nabatement in state buildings; repair and renovation to mental health
\nschools and hospitals, and to Camp Mabry, the headquarters of the
\nTexas State Guard and the Texas Air National Guard, and 14 regional
\nreadiness centers (armories); construction of up to three new high
\nsecurity prisons if needed; new construction at existing Texas Youth
\nCommission facilities and for one new facility; and repairs for Texas
\nstate parks and the Battleship Texas. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* Putting off maintenance, repairs, and renovations can result in
\nstill greater expense. It is wise to use the proceeds from the sale
\nof bonds to take care of these needs on a more timely basis. The
\nfacilities to be repaired and renovated by the passage of this
\nproposition and its enabling legislation are in poor condition and
\nneed immediate attention. <\/p>\n
* Using bond issues to fund these projects allows the state to pay
\nfor the cost over an extended period of time. This approach is
\nfiscally prudent and places a relatively small burden on the state’s
\ntaxpayers. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* The state should rely more on a “pay as you go” policy. When
\nagencies know they can expect help from state bonds, they tend to
\ngive maintenance a low priority. <\/p>\n
* This amendment would give too much leeway to the legislature and
\nstate agencies to decide how the money raised from these bonds would
\nbe spent. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 5 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit
\nthe voters of a municipality having a population 3 of less than
\n10,000 to authorize the governing body of the municipality to enter
\ninto an agreement with an owner of real property in or adjacent to an
\narea in the municipality that has been approved for funding under
\ncertain programs administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture
\nunder which the parties agree that all ad valorem taxes imposed on
\nthe owner’s property may not be increased for the first five tax
\nyears after the tax year in which the agreement is entered into. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
The Texas Department of Agriculture has two programs which towns may
\nuse to revitalize their main streets: the Main Street Revitalization
\nImprovement Program and Downtown Revitalization Program. These
\nprograms offer communities the ability to improve infrastructure to
\nrevitalize a downtown area and to encourage tourism. <\/p>\n
This amendment would allow certain small communities participating in
\nthe Main Street or Downtown revitalization programs to conduct a vote
\nof its residents to freeze property taxes in the downtown area for a
\nperiod of five years or until the property is sold. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* Proposition 5 would provide small communities a way to create
\nincentives for property owners to improve downtown buildings by
\nfreezing their tax burden. <\/p>\n
* The Legislature could give smaller communities a taxing tool that
\nthey currently do not have. A temporary freeze of the appraised value
\nwould provide a property owner the relief needed to invest realized
\nsavings into revitalization efforts. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* Property owners would be receiving the benefit from tax dollars
\nused to improve infrastructure, and they should be required to pay
\nany resulting increases in the value of their land. <\/p>\n
* Since this bill could reduce the tax burden for some property
\nowners, it could shift the burden to other taxpayers. The tax burden
\nwould be borne by a smaller pool of people. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 6 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt
\nfrom ad valorem taxation one motor vehicle owned by an individual and
\nused in the course of the owner’s occupation or profession and also
\nfor personal activities of the owner. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
Passage of this amendment would eliminate the requirement that pay ad
\nvalorem taxes on those vehicles. One motor vehicle owned by an
\nindividual would be exempt if it was used in the individual’s
\noccupation or profession and also used for personal activities that
\ndid not involve the production of income. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* The amendment would benefit realtors, farmers, and other small
\nbusiness owners and contractors who operate personal vehicles dually
\nfor commercial purposes. <\/p>\n
* The legislature has not shown a desire to tax property used for
\npersonal purposes in the past and this amendment would clarify state
\nlaw in that regard. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* Vehicles exempted under this proposed amendment should be taxable
\nand treated as any other personal property that generates income. <\/p>\n
* The limitation that an individual could exempt only one vehicle
\nwould be too strict. Many individuals have two or three vehicles that
\nthey use for both purposes. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 7 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment to allow governmental entities to sell
\nproperty acquired through eminent domain back to the previous owners
\nat the price the entities paid to acquire the property. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
Currently, if a governmental entity acquires a private real property
\ninterest through eminent domain but the public use for which the
\nproperty interest was acquired is canceled before the 10th
\nanniversary of the date of acquisition, then the previous owner is
\nentitled to repurchase the property interest for its fair market
\nvalue at the time the public use was canceled. <\/p>\n
Proposition 7 would amend the Texas Constitution to authorize, under
\ncertain conditions, a governmental entity to sell back real property
\nacquired through eminent domain to the original owner (or to the
\nperson’s heirs, successors, or assigns.) This could be done at any
\ntime and at the price the entity paid to acquire the property from
\nthe original owner. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* Property owners subject to the taking of their land that wrongfully
\nresulted in cancelled, absent, or unnecessary public uses would be the
\nonly ones eligible for restitution under this proposition. <\/p>\n
* Condemning authorities would be strongly discouraged from acquiring
\nland through eminent domain for which there were no immediate plans.
\nTakings completed on a speculative basis can deprive current owners
\nof the future value of their property. Proposition 7 would establish
\nan important safeguard against the excessive and reckless use
\nindividuals who use personal vehicles for business purposes must of
\neminent domain. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* State and federal law already require that the owner be fairly
\ncompensated for property when eminent domain is exercised. If the
\nowner has made a profit from investing money from the original sale,
\nthen is allowed to repurchase the land at the original price he will
\nhave used public money for personal financial gain. <\/p>\n
* This amendment is unfair to those citizens who sell their property
\nthrough eminent domain proceedings and are not able to repurchase it.
\nA former owner who repurchases property at the acquisition value does
\nnot pay property taxes, maintenance expenses or other costs
\nassociated with property ownership during the period it is held by
\nthe governmental entity. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 8 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The Constitutional Amendment to clarify certain provisions relating
\nto the making of a home equity loan and use of home equity loan
\nproceeds. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
In 1997, Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment to allow
\nhome equity loans. In 2003 another amendment was passed to allow home
\nequity lines of credit. Since the passage of these laws, there has
\nbeen disagreement, sometimes resulting in lawsuits, about
\ninterpretation of the enabling legislation for these amendments. <\/p>\n
Proposition 8 offers clarification about several provisions of this
\nlegislation and tries to offer protections to both borrowers and
\nlenders. For example, Proposition 8 requires that the lender must
\nprovide the borrower with copies of both the loan application and all
\nexecuted final loan documents. It includes a special provision for
\nhomeowners holding home equity loans who have a homestead in an area
\ndeclared a disaster area. Other provisions clarify the use of
\nunsolicited pre-printed checks and prohibit borrowers from rolling
\nunsecured debt into a secured home equity loan. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* This amendment allows homeowners whose homesteads lie in an area
\nincluded in a declaration of emergency to obtain a second home equity
\nloan within a one year period. <\/p>\n
* This amendment protects the homeowner from assuming too much debt
\nby limiting uses of the money obtained through a home equity loan. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* This amendment does not address special fees which are often
\ncharged by lenders. Many lenders currently exclude origination and
\nother fees from the legislated 3% fee cap on these loans, so
\nborrowers are often subjected to excessive charges. <\/p>\n
* Though this amendment addresses some of the problems with home
\nequity loan administration, it does not go far enough to protect
\nTexas homesteads. If the state is going to permit home equity loans,
\nit should require stronger borrower protection and better monitoring
\nof lenders. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 9 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to exempt
\nall or part of the residence homesteads of certain totally disabled
\nveterans from ad valorem taxation and authorizing a change in the
\nmanner of determining the amount of the existing exemption from ad
\nvalorem taxation to which a disabled veteran is entitled. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
VA disability ratings are determined by the U.S. Department of
\nVeterans Affairs. At present under state law, veterans with total
\ndisability can receive ad valorem tax exemptions of up to $12,000 on
\ntheir homestead property. This means that the appraised value of
\ntheir property is reduced by $12,000 before the tax rate is applied.
\nIn addition a totally disabled veteran is eligible for a property tax
\nfreeze. <\/p>\n
This proposed amendment would authorize the Legislature to exempt up
\nto 100% of the ad valorem taxes on the homestead property of veterans
\nwith 100% or total disability resulting from military service. It
\nwould also apply to the surviving spouse and to surviving minor
\nchildren. The proposition also authorizes a more equitable sliding
\nscale of ad valorem tax exemptions for veterans certified as
\npartially disabled. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* With little or no ability to earn a living, totally disabled
\nveterans could have great difficulty with the tax burden caused by
\nincreasing property values. A 100% exemption would help totally
\ndisabled veterans keep their homes. <\/p>\n
* The state should do everything it can to assist totally disabled
\nveterans who have done so much for our country. It should help them
\nto remain in their homes. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* This amendment would have a significant effect on resources
\navailable to tax districts because of the rising numbers of veterans
\nreceiving total disability certification as a result of their
\nmilitary service. <\/p>\n
* Totally disabled veterans already receive both a $12,000 property
\nappraisal credit and have their ad valorem taxes frozen, so they do
\nnot experience an increase in taxes as their property appreciates in
\nvalue. They should not receive a further tax reduction. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 10 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment to abolish the constitutional authority
\nfor the office of inspector of hides and animals. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
The now obsolete office of Inspector of Hides and Animals was
\nestablished in 1871. In 1999 numerous references to obsolete offices
\nand provisions were deleted from the Texas Constitution; however
\nthere is still mention of the office of inspector of hides and
\nanimals. If this proposed amendment were passed, it would eliminate
\nthis archaic reference. <\/p>\n
Argument For <\/p>\n
* The clean-up legislation of 1999 did not include the county office
\nof inspector of hides and animals. That was just an oversight;
\narchaic references should be eliminated. <\/p>\n
Argument Against <\/p>\n
* While this amendment would remove references to the Inspector of
\nHides and Animals from the state constitution, the office will not be
\nabolished until the Legislature deletes all remaining statutory
\nreferences to the office. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 11 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment to require that a record vote be taken
\nby a house of the legislature on final passage of any bill, other
\nthan certain local bills, of a resolution proposing or ratifying a
\nconstitutional amendment, or of any other nonceremonial resolution,
\nand to provide for public access on the Internet to those record
\nvotes. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
Texas is one of ten states which do not require that legislators
\nrecord their votes by name. Currently, the legislators make rules
\nevery session determining the conditions under which they will record
\ntheir votes by name. When votes are not routinely recorded by name,
\nthe common practice is to have a voice vote. <\/p>\n
This method does not allow citizens to know how their representatives
\nvoted on a specific issue. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* Recording votes of each legislator will establish a record of
\naccountability by which Texans can evaluate the performance of their
\nrepresentatives. <\/p>\n
* The Internet can provide real time, user-friendly access to voting
\nrecords. The technology to record and publish a Legislator’s vote is
\nin place and with improvements can be expected to be even faster and
\nmore cost effective. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* Written records of votes may inhibit legislators from engaging in
\nthe processes of negotiation and compromise often needed to pass
\nlegislation. <\/p>\n
* This constitutional amendment does not go far enough and should
\nrequire record votes on all steps of the legislative process, such as
\nvotes in committees, second readings and amendments. If citizens know
\nhow their representatives are voting before final passage, they can
\nbe involved more effectively with their legislators throughout the
\nprocess. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 12 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general
\nobligation bonds by the Texas Transportation Commission in an amount
\nnot to exceed $5 billion to provide funding for highway improvement
\nprojects. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
Currently the state can issue up to $1 billion in bonds backed by the
\nState Highway Fund (Fund 6). This amendment would add an additional
\nsource of funding by authorizing the issuance of state general
\nobligation bonds for transportation projects, with the requirement of
\nthe state that the principal and interest on the bonds that matured or
\nbecame due would be incontestable and would be paid during that fiscal
\nyear. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* This amendment provides a new source of revenue for the
\ntransportation needs of the state. Bonds issued from the general
\nrevenue would have a lower interest rate than current funding. The
\nproposition would not affect the state’s fiscal standing since Texas
\nhas a lower state debt burden than many other states. <\/p>\n
* Population increases in Texas have overloaded the capacity of the
\nroad and bridge system. This proposition would allow more rapid
\nconstruction to improve mobility and would aid economic development. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* Funding transportation needs could be met by raising gas tax rates,
\nvehicle registration fees, or other dedicated revenue rather than
\nincurring additional state debt. <\/p>\n
* Texas has been providing funding for transportation projects
\nthrough dedicated funds (Fund 6) and not through general revenue
\nbonds. Other emergency needs for funds from the general revenue may
\narise, and they might not be able to be met if the transportation
\nbonds have the revenue committed to roads and bridges. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 13 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a
\nperson who violates certain court orders or conditions of release in
\na felony or family violence case. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
Current law provides for a person accused of a felony, but not a
\nmisdemeanor, to be detained without bond under certain circumstances.
\nThere have been occasions when the accused violated the bond
\nconditions and a protective order, or committed certain misdemeanor
\noffenses, endangering the safety of the victim or the community. <\/p>\n
Proposition 13 proposes a constitutional amendment to authorize the
\ndenial of bail to a person who has been arrested for an offense
\ninvolving family violence when the judge or magistrate has issued an
\nemergency protective order, or the person is accused of violating an
\nactive protective order, including a temporary ex parte order. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* This constitutional amendment and its enabling legislation would
\nstrengthen Texas laws related to domestic violence. A judge could
\nevaluate the threat that a defendant presents to the victim and the
\ncommunity. If the threat is unacceptable, the judge can deny bail. <\/p>\n
* When the defendant is denied bail, the victim and the community are
\nbetter protected than bail bonds, <\/p>\n
community monitoring, or even electronic monitoring allows. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* Bail is a constitutional right and should be eliminated only in the
\nmost limited circumstances. If bail is constitutionally unavailable,
\ndefendants are punished by confinement even before they have been
\nfound guilty. <\/p>\n
* Denying bail based on a classification of victims contradicts the
\nreforms of the Penal Code made in the mid-1990s, which emphasized the
\nseriousness of the crime, not the status of the victim. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 14 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment permitting a justice or judge who
\nreaches the mandatory retirement age while in office to serve the
\nremainder of his or her current term. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
The Texas Constitution currently requires a judge to leave the
\nProposition 14 proposes a constitutional amendment to permit a judge
\nreaching retirement age to complete the remainder of his or her term.<\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* Allowing a judge to continue to serve until the completion of his
\nor her term permits continuity and more efficiency in the court.
\nCases may be heard without the disruption of working with a temporary
\njudge or a new judge, who would have to be brought up to date on the
\ncase. <\/p>\n
* Long-term judicial service provides an incentive to keep
\nexperienced judges on the bench since their retirement is based on
\nlength of service and pay rate. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* Current law establishes a clear standard for the retirement of
\njudges. <\/p>\n
* If judges serve past their 75th birthdays, the entrance of new
\njudges who might be more aware of modern trends and developments in
\nthe law into the judiciary is delayed. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 15 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment requiring the creation of the Cancer
\nPrevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizing the
\nissuance of up to $3 billion in bonds payable from the general
\nrevenues of the state for research in Texas to find the causes of and
\ncures for cancer. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
This amendment would establish a state-wide cancer research and
\nprevention institute which could manage and disburse state monies for
\ncancer research and prevention studies and programs in Texas. It
\nauthorizes the issuance of up to $3 billion in general revenue bonds
\nfor this purpose. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* Each year more than 75,000 Texans are diagnosed with some form of
\ncancer, while more than 35,000 Texans die from cancer. More support
\nfor research and prevention can reduce those statistics. <\/p>\n
* The cost of the bonds would be offset by new jobs generated by
\nthese projects and studies, and by the decreased direct and indirect
\ncosts of treating cancer patients. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* Government funding of medical research should be done at the
\nfederal level, since the research would benefit everyone who lives in
\nthe U.S., not just residents of Texas. <\/p>\n
* While cancer is a devastating disease, there are many sources of
\nfunding for its prevention and cure. State money could be better
\nspent on other health care needs, bench when the judge turns 75 years
\nof age, but not earlier than such as taking care of the uninsured and
\nprevention of 70 years which the legislature prescribes as retirement
\nage. <\/p>\n
PROPOSITION 16 <\/p>\n
Official Ballot Language <\/p>\n
The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional
\ngeneral obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an
\namount not to exceed $250 million to provide assistance to
\neconomically distressed areas. <\/p>\n
Explanation <\/p>\n
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) administers the Economically
\nDistressed Areas Program (EDAP) established in 1989. EDAP provides
\nfinancial assistance in the form of grants, loans, or grant\/loan
\ncombinations to bring water and wastewater services primarily to
\ncolonias along the Texas-Mexico border. The program funds
\nconstruction, acquisition, and improvements to water supply and
\nwastewater collection and treatment facilities, including all
\nengineering work. The applicant must fund maintenance and operations.<\/p>\n
In 1991 a constitutional amendment was approved by voters to allow
\n$250 million in general obligation bonds to be issued for the EDAP
\nprogram. In 2005 the legislature expanded EDAP to allow other
\neconomically distressed areas throughout the state to receive
\nassistance under the program. SJR 20 would amend the Texas
\nConstitution to allow TWDB to issue an additional $250 million in
\ngeneral obligation bonds for the EDAP program account with the Texas
\nWater Development Fund II. <\/p>\n
Arguments For <\/p>\n
* The EDAP has been successful in meeting water and wastewater needs,
\nbut many Texas residents continue to lack these basic infrastructures.
\nAccording to TWDB traditional EDAP communities still require about
\n$250 million to meet their needs. <\/p>\n
* Extending water service makes strong economic sense. While many of
\nthe EDAP communities are poor, the existence of water lines would
\nenable businesses to move into these areas, improving the tax base
\nand providing jobs. <\/p>\n
Arguments Against <\/p>\n
* The program should not be expanded because, in spite of spending
\nmore than $500 million in state and federal funds, the problem has
\nnot gone away. Texas should search for other ways to address its
\nwater and wastewater needs. <\/p>\n
* Continuing to extend water lines to unincorporated areas could
\nprove counter-productive since it would encourage people to move into
\nthe regions that are costly to serve. <\/p>\n
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS <\/p>\n
Where do I vote? <\/p>\n
For early voting and election day voting locations, call the county
\nclerk or elections administrator’s office in the county in which you
\nare registered, or go to: www.sos.state.tx.us and click on Elections
\nand Voter Information. Your local newspaper may also list voting
\nlocations. <\/p>\n
How do I register to vote? <\/p>\n
You may register to vote at any time with your County Tax Assessor or
\nElection Administrator, or register to vote online at:
\nhttp:\/\/www.sos.state.tx.us
\n and click on Elections and Voter Information. <\/p>\n
It is also possible to register with a deputized voter registrar
\nduring a voter registration drive. To vote in a particular election,
\nyour application for registration must be postmarked or received by
\nthe registrar at least thirty days before that election. (October 9th
\nis the deadline to register to vote in this election.) <\/p>\n
What is a provisional ballot? <\/p>\n
If your name is not on the list of registered voters in your
\nprecinct, and you do not have a valid registration card, you are
\nentitled to vote a “provisional ballot” which will be kept sealed
\nwhile a ballot board investigates the problem. You must provide some
\nform of identification to show that you reside in that precinct. You
\nalso must vote in the correct precinct on Election Day. Even if you
\nare found to be legally registered, your provisional vote will not be
\ncounted if you did not cast it in the correct precinct. <\/p>\n
This Voters Guides is funded by the League of Women Voters of Texas
\nEducation Fund, which is supported by contributions from individuals,
\ncorporations, and foundations. The Education Fund gratefully
\nacknowledges major contributions from: <\/p>\n
Special thanks to Jacqueline Pike for the Spanish translation of the
\nVoters Guide. <\/p>\n
Harold Simmons Foundation
\nHatton W. Sumners Foundation
\nRuth McLean Bowman Bowers Foundation
\nRuth Bowers
\nRuthann Geer
\nSusybelle Gosslee
\nJulia Marsden
\nDiane Sheridan
\nLinda Wassenich
\nElaine Wiant
\nNancy Wilson
\nMore Information
\nSecretary of State
\nwww.sos.state.tx.us
\nHouse Research Organization
\nhttp:\/\/www.hro.house.state.tx.us<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Elections on November 6, 2007 On Election Day, November 6, 2007, polls are open 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. This email contains information that may be helpful in understanding the issues in the November 6th Election. I’ve included the text…<\/p>\n