Amending Texas’ Constitution, understanding the ballot

Early voting begins Oct. 21 and the Navasota Examiner will publish the 10 proposed Constitutional amendments over the next few weeks. The Condensed Analyses of Proposed Constitutional Amendments, 86th Legislative Session for the Nov. 5, 2019 Election is published by the Texas Legislative Council and available at: https://www.tlc.texas.gov/docs/amendments/analyses19_condensed.pdf. A detailed analysis is available at: https://www.tlc.texas.gov/docs/amendments/analyses19.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 No. 7

(H.J.R. 151)

The constitutional amendment allowing increased distributions to the available school fund.

Summary Analysis

H.J.R. 151 proposes an amendment to the Texas Constitution to extend the authority to distribute revenues derived from the permanent school fund land or properties to the State Board of Education. The General Land Office or another entity with responsibility for the management of revenues from the permanent school fund land or properties continues to have authority for the management of those revenues.

The proposed amendment clarifies that distributions made under Section 5(g), Article VII, Texas Constitution, are in addition to distributions authorized by any other provision of the Texas Constitution or statute and increases the limit that may be distributed to $600 million by each entity each year.

Comments by Supporters

• Doubling the current $300 million cap on the annual distribution by the General Land Office (GLO) from the Permanent School Fund (PSF) to the available school fund (ASF) and authorizing an additional annual $600 million distribution to the ASF by the State Board of Education (SBOE) would improve funding for public schools when sufficient revenues are available. In recent years the performance of the GLO’s PSF land investments could have supported annual transfers to the ASF in amounts greater than the current constitutional cap.

• The amendment would give the GLO and the SBOE the flexibility to distribute more of the proceeds of the PSF investments they respectively administer to the ASF in a given year.

• Under the amendment, the GLO and the SBOE would be expected to collaborate to maximize funding for schools. This collaboration should ease concerns about how raising the cap will affect the SBOE’s portion of the PSF.

Comments by Opponents

• Raising the cap on PSF transfers to the ASF could ultimately result in lower school funding because of the manner in which the GLO and the SBOE share responsibility for managing the PSF. If the GLO sends more proceeds directly to the ASF, that will mean it transfers less to the investment portfolio portion of the PSF overseen by the SBOE. The SBOE transfers money from the PSF to the ASF within limits set by the constitution, so less money in the SBOE’s portion of the PSF would impact the amount of the SBOE’s distribution to the ASF.

Proposition 8 (H.J.R. 4)

The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the flood infrastructure fund to assist in the financing of drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects.

Summary Analysis

H.J.R. 4 proposes an amendment to the Texas Constitution to create the flood infrastructure fund as a special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund. The resolution authorizes money in the fund, as provided by general law, to be administered and used, without further appropriation, by the Texas Water Development Board or that board’s successor in function to provide financing for a drainage, flood mitigation, or flood control project, including planning and design activities, work to obtain regulatory approval to provide nonstructural and structural flood mitigation and drainage, or construction of structural flood mitigation and drainage infrastructure. The resolution authorizes separate accounts to be established in the fund as necessary to administer the fund or authorized projects.

Comments by Supporters

• Significant funding for flood control and mitigation projects is necessary to ensure that the state is able to prepare for and recover from natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey.

• Creating the flood infrastructure fund outside the general revenue fund will better protect money needed for flood projects from being redirected for other purposes.

• By providing both grants and loans, the fund will facilitate access to flood project financing for communities that are too small or have insufficient resources to raise the local matching funds required for federal programs.

• The fund will enable political subdivisions to pursue projects that may not fit the criteria imposed by other funding sources, such as federal agencies.

• Administration by the Texas Water Development Board will provide a more consistent statewide approach to flood mitigation.

Comments by Opponents

• Federal funding and other state financing sources are sufficient to support the necessary flood projects without establishing another special fund in the constitution.

• State funding efforts should be restricted to loans so that applicants will be required to demonstrate local commitment to proposed projects.

• Proposed initial funding from the state’s rai ny day fund is inappropriate because the flood infrastructure fund is intended for continuing purposes, not a one-time expenditure.