Amending Texas’ Constitution, understanding the 2023 ballot PROPOSITIONS 11 AND 12
Early voting begins Oct. 23 and the Navasota Examiner will publish the 14 proposed Constitutional amendments over the next seven weeks. The Condensed Analyses of Proposed Constitutional Amendments, 88th Legislative Session for the Nov. 7, 2023, Election is published by the Texas Legislative Council and available at: https://www.tlc. texas.gov/docs/amendments/ analyses23_condensed.pdf.
A detailed analysis is available at: https://tlc.texas. gov/docs/amendments/analyses23. pdf
Summary of Comments The following comments supporting or opposing the proposed constitutional amendment reflect positions that were presented in committee proceedings, during house or senate floor debate, or in the analysis of the resolution prepared by the House Research Organization (HRO) when the resolution was considered by the House of Representatives.
Proposition 11 (S.J.R. 32) The con s t i t u t ional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities.
Summary Analysis
The constitutional amendment proposed by S.J.R. 32, 88th Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, would amend Section 59(c-1), Article XVI, Texas Constitution, to add El Paso County to the list of counties in Section 59(c-1) in which the legislature may authorize conservation and reclamation districts (special districts such as water control and improvement districts, municipal management districts, and special utility districts) to develop and finance parks and other purely recreational facilities with taxes. The amendment, without limiting any power to finance parks and recreational facilities in El Paso County that currently exists, provides for the issuance of bonds financed by taxes in districts located wholly or partly in El Paso County.
Comments by Supporters • In 2003, the Texas Constitution was amended to allow conservation and reclamation districts in certain counties to issue bonds supported by property taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities if approved by district voters, but El Paso County was not among the counties included at that time. The proposed amendment would extend this beneficial authority to conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County.
• The issuance of bonds to fund parks and recreational facilities in these districts in El Paso County would help to address the need for more parks and open spaces in the county and improve the quality of life for county residents. It could also make the county more competitive for Texans considering moving to El Paso.
• The decision to assess property taxes to support the issuance of bonds for that purpose is left to the discretion of each district and its voters. The assessment of property taxes would not be mandatory.
• The proposed amendment would not impair any district’s contract with the federal government regarding per-acre assessments since it does not create a mandate.
Comments by Opponents • The proposed amendment would give certain conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County the unnecessary authority to assess property taxes.
• Under Section 55.364, Water Code, certain conservation and reclamation districts in the county have federal contracts that require that any land within the districts be assessed on a peracre basis. These districts should be excluded from the applicability of the resolution’s property tax provisions to avoid additional tax burdens.
Proposition 12 (H.J.R. 134) The con s t i t u t ional amendment providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County.
Summary Analysis
The con s t i t u t ional amendment proposing to add Section 44(d), Article XVI, Texas Constitution, if approved by the voters, would abolish the office of county treasurer in Galveston County and authorize the commissioners court of that county to employ or contract with a qualified person, or designate a county officer, to perform any of the functions that would have been performed by the county treasurer if the office had not been abolished. The amendment also provides that the amendment takes effect only if, in addition to approval by voters across the state, a majority of the voters in Galveston County voting on the question also approve the amendment.
Comments by Supporters • The Galveston County Treasurer’s Office does not provide a sufficient level of added protection for taxpayers to justify the amount of county funds needed to operate the office.
• The duties of the office of county treasurer could and would be absorbed by other county departments and done at a cost savings to taxpayers.
• Galveston County is well suited to successfully operate without a county treasurer as the county has a number of other officers, including an auditor, CFO, and purchasing agent, who perform duties that are performed by the county treasurer in other counties.
• Elimination of the treasurer’s office is supported by the current Galveston County treasurer, all members of the Galveston County Commissioners Court, and all municipalities in the county.
• Galveston County voters have already tacitly approved of abolishing the office of county treasurer by voting for the current county treasurer, who ran on the platform of abolishing the office.
• Nine other counties have eliminated their county treasurer position and have been able to continue operating efficient county governments.
• Voters statewide have previously recognized that an official treasurer position is not necessary by voting to abolish the office of state treasurer in 1995.
* Eliminating a constitutionally elected office is not unprecedented as other such offices, like county land surveyor or animal control officer, have been eliminated in the past.
Comments by Opponents • A stand-alone office of county treasurer that is headed by a person directly elected by county voters provides essential checks and balances in the operation of county government.
• Eliminating the office of county treasurer would not provide any real cost savings as the duties undertaken by the office would still be necessary and additional employees would need to be hired in other county departments to carry out those duties.
• Eliminating one county office and absorbing its functions into other departments sets a bad precedent and could lead to the concentration of power within the county.
• Since the office of county treasurer is a constitutionally elected office, it is important to maintain the office.