The Clifton Record (Clifton, Tex.), Vol. 108, No. 71, Ed. 1 Wednesday, September 3, 2003 Page: 5 of 14
fourteen pages : ill. ; page 24 x 14 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
BEST AVAILABLE COPV
Phor**: (254) 675-3336 • Fax: (254) 675-4090
Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2003 E-mail: n«w»@cllftonrecord com • •ds@cimonracord.com
The Clifton Record
The Clifton Record ONUNE:
http://cliftonrecord .com
5
— Editorial —
p* •
i
<
Be Wary Of Many Proposed
Constitutional Amendments
T7o
Vi'
oters will consider 22 proposed amendments
to the Texas Constitution on Saturday, Sept.
13.
This newspaper is always asked by readers to pro-
Jvide its opinion on the proposals, making recommen
[dations on whether citizens should vote “for” or
•“against” on the individual items.
J We have substantial concerns about this year’s slate
[of proposed amendments for a couple of reasons.
;First, there appears to be some double dipping, es-
sentially asking voters to consider an amendment
[twice (reverse mortgages).
y There is also an attempt to persuade voters to dis-
able the judicial branch and give its power to the state
[legislature (Prop. 12), a very scary proposition. It goes
[much deeper than “doctors vs. lawyers,” especially
[when “and other actions” leaves it wide open. Do you
want to forfeit long-held rights?
Although some of the proposed amendments seem
useful when you read the heading, if you delve further
into the details you will find that they offer negative
repurcussions to taxpayers and local levels of govern-
ment, or that they provide an avenue for taxpayers to
lose control over matters that could have a major long-
term impact on their lives.
For this reason, it is important that every voter, be-
fore voting “for" any proposal, first read the fine print,
and then make an informed decision.
The short titles are drenched in editorializing and
can be misleading, especially if you do not scrutinze
every word and what it might mean. We urge that if
you are unsure, vote “no.”
That being said, here are our recommenda-
tions:
(Information sources used include a “Fbcus Report" by the Texas House of Representatives' House Research
Organization and the League ofVfamen Voters in Texas.)
Proposition 1:
| “The constitutional amendment
authorizing the Veterans’ Land
board to use assets in certain vet-
erans' land and veterans' housing
assistance funds to provide veter
jjhomes for the aged or infirm
,.and to make principal, interest, and
'[bortd enhancement payments on
•revenue bonds. ”
e Explanation Of Proposition
[ Proposition 1 would amend Art. 3,
•[sec. 49-b to allow the VLB to use ex-
cess assets from the Veterans’ Land
/and Veterans’ Housing Assistance
;[funds to plan, design, build, acquire,
‘Jown, operate, maintain, enlarge, im-
prove, furnish, or equip veterans’
i homes. It also would delete a provi-
sion that limits the VLB to using ex-
cess fund receipts to pay principal
•;and interest or to make bond en-
chancement payments on revenue
£ bonds issued only in connection with
Jthe Veterans’ Land and Veterans’
■j Housing Assistance funds.
i Supporters Claim:
J • Texas has more than 500,000 vet-
erans over the age of 65, for whom
' long-term care is a high-priority is-
ie. This proposed amendment
vould allow the VLB to use excess
assets to build and maintain these
needed facilities.
The state would save money by
not having to issue revenue bonds
specifically to fund these homes. Us-
Sing existing funds lowers bond trans-
action costs to the state and could
es«lt in lower fees to seniors who
•live in these nursing homes.
Opponents Claim:
• This proposed amendment
Sgrants the VLB sole discretion to de-
gtermine its excess assets and how
pjto distribute them fairly,
i j • The proposed amendment al-
lows the VLB to direct money away
/from other worthy VLB programs
jsuch as low-interest home loans and
Jhome improvement loans.
•» This Newspaper Recommends:
We believe this amendment
should be defeated since money that
vas dedicated to veterans’ land and
liousing assistance programs should
continue to be used for those pur-
poses. This amendment will have
j'eterans subsidizing programs they
might never use and from which
hoy may never benefit.
.AGAINST!
Kwifr‘- __
oposition 2:
“The constitutional amendment
to establish a two-year period for
the redemption of a mineral inter-
est sold for unpaid ad valorem
taxes at a tax sale. ”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 2 would amend Art. 8,
sec. 13 to grant former owners of
mineral interests sold for unpaid
taxes a two -year redemption period,
• subject to the same purchase re-
quirements as apply to a former
owner of a residence homestead or
of agricultural property.
Supporters Claim:
• The proposed amendment
would make the redemption period
for mineral interests uniform with
the one for residence homesteads
jmd land designated for agricultural
use.
, • This amendment would offer
Ifome protection to mineral interest
rWners from the possible conse-
pquences of inaccurate or incomplete
^private company records.
Opponents Claim:
Extending the redemption pe-
iod on mineral interests to two
^ ears may further burden school dis-
tricts already struggling to collect
(Stheir mandated 96 percent of taxes
jjdue in oil and gas-rich counties.
• The proposed amendment is
nly a stopgap measure to provide
imited relief to mineral interest
iwners, instead of addressing the
al need to properly maintain the
ineral interest tax rolls, and Cre-
te a structure to efficiently collect
e mineral interest taxes due.
ft This Newspaper Recommends:
A This amendment could be used by
"^some property owners as a shield
’rom paying legitimate property
axes owed and should not be
>assed.
AGAINST!
[Proposition 3:
“The constitutional amendment
authorize the legislature to ex-
empt from ad valorem taxation
property owned by a religious or-
ganization that is leased for use as
a school or that is owned with the
intent of expanding or constructing
a religious facility "
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 3 would amend Art. 8,
sec. 2(a) to authorize the Legisla
ture to grant tax exemptions to
churches or strictly religious soci-
eties owning actual places of wor
ship for two additional types of
property: non-income-producing
land owned for the purpose of ex-
panding a place of worship or for
construction of a new place of wor
ship, and property owned and leased
for use as a school for educational
purposes. The Legislature could
limit eligibility for and impose sanc-
tions related to the exemption for
property intended for expansion or
construction. Eligible schools would
have to meet the qualifications out-
lined in Tax Code, sec. 11.21.
Supporters Claim:
• This proposition might encour-
age development of unused land for •
socially desirable purposes.
• Adding this exemption may of-
fer relief to growing congregations
that must continue to maintain their
principal place of worship while
building up funds for expansion or
relocation. Paying ad valorem taxes
on property that yields a church no
revenue may be an unfair burden.
Opponents Claim:
• The proposed constitutional
amendment will deprive cities,
counties, and school district? of
needed revenue. —
• Exempting property leased by
churches for schools may hurt pub-
lic school districts by not only de-
priving them of property tax
revenue, but also creating a com-
petitive advantage for private
schools that compete for the same
pool of students and the state mon-
ies that are distributed.
This Newspaper Recommends:
The basis for tax exemption for re-
ligious institutions has been and
should remain based on use, not
merely ownership. Passage of this
amendment could result in a reduc
tion of revenues to public school dis-
tricts, and therefore it should not be
approved.
AGAINST!
Proposition 4:
“The constitutional amendment
relating to the provision of parks
and recreational facilities by cer-
tain conservati m and reclamation
districts. ”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 4 would amend Texas
Constitution, Art. 16, sec. 59 to in-
clude the development of parks and
recreational facilities among the
public rights and duties for which
the Legislature must pass appropri-
ate laws related to conserving and
developing natural resources.
The Legislature could authorize
certain MUDs to issue bonds for de-
velopment and maintenance of
parks and recreational facilities, if
approved by a majority of voters in
a district election. MUDs in
Bastrop, Bexar, Brazoria, Fort
Bend, Galveston, Harris, Montgom-
ery, TVavis, Waller, or Williamson
Counties, or partly in one of those
counties, would be included, along
with the Tarrant Regional Water
District. The Legislature also could
authorize the MUDs to levy and col-
lect taxes to pay interest and to cre-
ate a sinking fund for payment of the
bonds and for maintenance of and
improvements to such facilities.
The indebtedness would be a lien on
the property assessed for payment
of the bonds.
The amendment would specify that
it expands the Legislature’s author-
ity with respect to certain conserva-
tion and reclamation districts and
does not limit the Legislature’s pre-
existing authority with respect to con-
servation and reclamation districts
and parks and recreational facilities.
Supporters Claim:
• This amendment would allow
the creation of needed recreational
facilities in areas unable to develop
them currently.
• This amendment would not al-
low a conservation and reclamation
district to incur indebtedness un-
less the district’s voters adopt a
proposition.
Opponents Claim:
• Existing state, county, and city
mechanisms should be adequate to
meet public recreational needs
without granting the same author-
ity to municipal utility districts.
• This amendment would allow
another taxing authority to increase
the tax burden on the district’s tax-
payers.
This Newspaper Recommends:
We recommend a “no” vote to this
amendment. Local and state gov-
ernmental agencies already in place
have adequate knowledge and facil-
ity of park needs, and to give this
power to districts that normally
have abysmal voter turnout would
not be prudent.
AGAINST!
Proposition 5:
“The constitutional amendment
to authorize the legislature to ex-
empt from ad valorem taxation
travel trailers not held or used for
the production of income.”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 5 would repeal Art. 8,
sec. l(j), which allows the Legisla-
ture to authorize taxing units, ex-
cept school districts, to exempt
non-incoming-producing, Texas-
registered travel trailers from ad
valorem taxation. This change
would take effect Jan, 1, 2004. The
amendment also would revise Art.
8, sec. (d)(2), which defines residen-
tial structures that do not qualify for
tax exemption. To lose their tax-ex-
empt status, these structures would
have to be substantially affixed to
real estate. This change also would
take effect Jan. 1, 2004, but would
apply to 2002 and subsequent tax
years.
Supporters Claim:
• This amendment clarifies the
intent of the legislature and voters
in 2001. It continues Texas’ practice
of not taxing personal property not
used in the production of income.
• The proposed amendment pro-
motes tourism and economic devel-
opment in areas of the state where
travel trailers can become tempo-
rary homes during the winter
months.
Opponents Claim:
• Governmental entities that tax
travel trailers will lose needed rev-
enue. To make up the shortfall, they
may raise taxes for other property
owners.
• Persons who live in travel trail-
ers should pay property taxes just
like other homeowners, including
those who live in manufactured
homes.
This Newspaper Recommends:
Why not put these decisions in the
hands of the entities affected by re-
moving exemptions from taxation
altogether but giving school districts
the option to exempt them from ad
valorem taxes should they so wish?
For that reason, we recommend de-
feating this proposition.
AGAINST!
Proposition 6:
“The constitutional amendment
permitting refinancing of a home
equity loan with a reverse mort-
gage"
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 6 would amend Art.
16, sec. 50(0 to authorize the use of
a reverse mortgage loan to refi-
nance a home equity loan.
Supporters Claim:
• The proposition would allow se-
nior citizens more flexibility in ob-
taining income from the equity in
their home, without giving up their
homestead protections.
Opponents Claim:
• Refinancing a mortgage ac-
crues principal and interest debt
that must be repaid after the home
is sold or the borrower dies.
This Newspaper Recommends:
This amendment will increase the
number of reverse mortgages is-
sued, but also stands to see that Tex-
ans get less for the equity, so we
recommend this amendment does
not pass.
AGAINST!_
Proposition 7:
“The constitutional amendment
to permit a six-personjury in a dis-
trict court misdemeanor trial.”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 7 would amend the
Constitution to require that petit ju-
ries in criminal misdemeanor cases
heard in district court be composed
of six-people It would delete lan
guage allowing nine members of a
12 person jury to render a verdict in
misdemeanor cases heard in dis-
trict court.
Supporters Claim:
• This amendment would make it
possible for rural, small community
district courts to have six person
juries to try misdemeanors, putting
them on a par with larger commu
nities that have specialized courts
already using six-person juries for
such cases.
• Passage of this amendment
would save money in smaller com-
munities and make it easier to em-
panel juries for misdemeanor trials
Opponents Claim:
• All district court defendants
should be entitled to a 12-person jury
no matter what the offense.
• Cost savings is not an accept-
able reason for changing the current
system.
This Newspaper Recommends:
These courts have historically uti
lized 12-member juries both for the
protection of the defendant and the
benefit of the state. Cutting the jury
in half only seems to increase the
possible problems to both sides.
This amendment should not be
passed.
AGAINST!
Proposition 8:
“The constitutional amendment
authorizing the legislature to per-
mit a person to take office without
an election if the person is the only
candidate to qualify in an election
for that office. ”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 8 would add Art 16,
sec. 13 to the Constitution, authoriz-
ing the Legislature to allow a per-
son to take office without an election
if the person was the only candidate
to qualify in an election to be held
for that office.
Supporters Claim:
• This amendment would pro
mote efficiency in election adminis
tration and reduce the cost of
elections. This amendment would
not interfere with voter’s rights,
since anyone who is running unop
posed in an election wins by virtue
of being the only candidate for that
office.
Opponents Claim:
• A voter has a right to vote for
the candidate of his choice, and the
candidate has a right to campaign
and gain visibility. Voters have a
right to know the positions of their
elected officials.
This Newspaper Recommends:
This amendment deserves to be
defeated since, whether there is
only one candidate on the ballot for
an office is immaterial. Every reg-
istered voter has the right to cast a
vote, or decline to cast a vote, for a
candidate when an office is up for
election. Passing this amendment
takes away a fundamental right of
the citizens.
AGAINST!
Proposition 9:
“The constitutional amendment
relating to the use of income and
appreciation of the permanent
school fund.”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 9 would amend Art. 7,
sec. 5 to redefine the ASF as consist-
ing of distributions from the total
return on all investment assets of
the PSF The amendment would au
thorize the SBOE to adopt a capital-
gains distribution rate by a
two-thirds vote before each regular
session of the Legislature. Failing
SBOE’s adoption of a rate, the Leg-
islature would adopt a rate in stat-
ute or by appropriation. During
fiscal 2004-05, the rate would be
capped at 4.5 percent of the average
quarterly market value of the PSF
for the previous four years; each
year thereafter, the rate would be
capped at 6 percent. For any 10-year
period, the distribution could not ex-
ceed the total return on all invest-
ment assets of the PSF over the
same 10-year period. The expanses
of managing PSF land and invest-
ments would be paid by appropria
tion from the PSF
Supporters Claim:
• The income-based strategy is
not keeping up with the needs of
Texas’ schoolchildren. Between
1990 and 2001, distributions from the
PSF to the ASF rose by only three
percent. In that same time period,
capital gains in the PSF increased
by 806 percent
• Using the current income
based strategy encourages the
adoption of riskier investments to
produce the income needed by ASF
Only 2.5 percent of funds report us
ing an income-based strategy. No
college or university endowment
fund with assets over $500 million
uses an income-based strategy. Ex-
planation
Opponents Claim:
• Since 1876, the basic guidelines
of the fund have not changed. Even
during the depression, Texans did
not “eat their seed corn.” During
this temporary budget crunch,
there is a temptation to raid this
large fund to ease existing budget
woes.
• The proposed amendment
would allow the state to take up to 6
percent of the average market value
of the fund each year and distribute
the proceeds to Texas school dis-
tricts This strategy has the poten
tial of decreasing the fund’s princi
pal, thus in the long term reducing
the fund's overall value
This Newspaper Recommends:
The Permanent School F\ind was
created to be a primary source of
funding for school textbook pur
chases Altering the usage of this
fund could put further financial bur
dens on public school districts in a
time when finances are already in
trouble Therefore, we recommend
voters turn down this amendment.
AGAINST!-
Proposition 10:
“The constitutional amendment
authorizing municipalities to do
nate surplus fire fighting equip
ment or supplies for the benefit of
rural volunteer fire departments ”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 10 would amend the
Constitution by adding Art 3, sec
52i, authorizing a municipality to
donate surplus equipment, sup
plies, or other materials used in
fighting fires to the TFS or a sue
cessor agency authorized to coop
erate in the development of rural
fire protection plans. The TFS. in
turn, could redistribute these ma
terials to rural volunteer fire de
partments based on need
Supporters Claim:
• This proposed amendment
would enable fire departments to
donate their equipment to volun
teer fire departments that operate
with minimal funds the Texas For
est Service would collect, evaluate,
and distribute the donated equip-
ment, insuring its distribution to
those most in need.
•Passage of this amendment
would not affect the continued do
nation of surplus equipment to
Mexico, because volunteer fire de
partments often have higher stan-
dards than fire departments in
Mexico Municipalities would still
be able to choose where their do
nated equipment would go. For ex
ample, Texas cities on the border
could donate their excess equip
ment to Mexico if such an action
was deemed in the municipality’s
best interest.
Opponents Claim:
• The Texas Constitution cur-
rently protects taxpayers by requir
ing compensation for any transfer
of public property. This amendment
would undermine this safeguard
• Current law allows cities and
towns to sell the equipment, but
does not provide for reduced-cost
sales. Texas municipalities should
not be allowed to donate equipment
outright, but should be allowed to
sell it at a reduced cost to volunteer
departments. Such sales of equip-
ment to volunteer fire departments
would provide support to these or-
ganizations while allowing commu-
nities to recoup part of their
firefighting investment.
This Newspaper Recommends:
This proposal should be defeated.
Municipalities that wish to donate
surplus equipment to a fire depart-
ment should not be required to do-
nate it to another agency in the
hopes the equipment will wind up
at its intended location. In addition,
city taxpayers who have funded pur-
chase of this equipment should not
be expected to relinquish it without
compensation of some sort.
AGAINST!
Proposition 11:
“A constitutional amendment to
allow the legislature to enact laws
authorizing and governing the op-
eration of wineries in this state. ”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 11 would add Art. 16.
sec. 20(d). authorizing the Legisla
ture to set policies for the manufac-
ture of wine for all wineries in the
state, whether located in a “dry"
area or not. The Legislature also
could direct the Texas Alcoholic
Beverage Commission (TABC) or its
successor to establish policies gov-
erning wineries. Such policies could
include: on-premises retail sale of
wine for consumption on or off the
premises; purchase of wine from, or
sale of wine to, an authorized wine
retailer; dispensing of free wine for
tasting purposes, on premises con
sumption; and any other purpose
promoting the state’s wine industry.
Supporters Claim:
• This proposed amendment
would bring uniformity to the laws
and regulations affecting wineries
across the state. Presently,
winemaking is permitted in several
“dty" areas, but not all. Some win
eries are allowed to offer wine sam-
pling on their premises. Some can
sell wine on their premises under
specified conditions. This amend-
ment would address the confusion
and complication that now exists.
• By encouraging the wine pro
ducing industry, tourism and the
Texas economy would benefit.
Opponents Claim:
• This amendment would take
away rights currently granted to
citizens to make decisions concern-
ing the sale of alcoholic beverages
in their communities. Over 50 coun-
ties and some precincts and munici-
palities choose not to permit such
sale. Under current law wineries are
not prohibited from expanding in
Texas. They can locate in areas
without restrictions or export their
wine to other markets.
• The state of Texas has consis-
tently been near the top in alcohol-
related traffic deaths in this country.
Consuming wine on the premises
could lead to even higher death
rates
This Newspaper Recommends:
A winery does not have to be in a
“dry" location to operate, and a win-
ery that wants to sell its products for
on premisp consumption has a wide
variety of “wet" locales in which to
locate, so wd recommend defeating
this proposition.
AGAINST!
Proposition 12:
“The constitutional amendment
concerning civil lawsuits against
doctors and health care providers,
and other actions, authorizing the
legislature to determine limita-
tions on non economic damages ”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 12 would add sec 66
to Art 3 of the Texas Constitution,
authorizing the Legislature to set
limits on damages, except economic
damages It would apply to limita
tions on damages in medical liabil-
ity cases enacted during the 2003
regular session of the 78th Legisla-
ture or in subsequent sessions. It
also would apply to limitations on
noneconomic damages in all other
types of cases after Jan 1.2005, sub-
ject to approval by a three fifths
vote of the members elected to each
house. The amendment would de
fine “economic damages” as com-
pensatory damages for any
pecuniary loss or damage. Such
damages would not include any loss
or damage, however characterized,
for past, present, and future physi
cal pain and suffering, loss of con-
sortium, loss of companionship and
society, disfigurement, or physical
impairment.
The Legislature's authority to
limit noneconomic dan,ages would
apply regardless of whether the
claim or cause of action arose or
was derived from common law, a
statute, or othei w, including tort,
contract, or any other liability
theory or combination of theories.
The claim or cause of action would
include a medical or health-care li-
ability claim, as defined by the Leg-
islature, based on a medical or
health-care provider’s treatment,
lack of treatment, or other claimed
departure from an accepted stan-
dard of medical or health care or
safety that caused or contributed to
a person's actual or claimed dis-
ease, injury, or death.
Supporters Claim:
• Because economic damages
would not be capped, a limit on non-
economic damages would give
plaintiffs the compensation that
they deserve instead of a windfall of
cash.
• Unlimited damages undermine
the state’s health care system, be-
cause when liability insurance pre-
miums rise too high, doctors may
stop practicing or move to states
with lower insurance premiums.
• Eleven insurance carriers have
announced their withdrawal from
the Texas liability insurance mar-
ket. This proposition could encour-
age more insurers to do business in
the state.
Opponents Claim:
• This proposition gives the leg-
islature the authority to limit non-
economic damages in all civil
lawsuits, not just medical malprac-
tice cases, in 2005.
• Limits on non economic dam
ages would disproportionately re-
duce suits on behalf of children,
retirees, and other unemployed
people who could claim no loss of
income
• Opponents claim that insurance
companies increased premiums to
offset investment losses in a falling
stock market, not because of losses
from non economic damages. They
further claim insurance premiums
will not fall until insurance compa-
nies are regulated.
This Newspaper Recommends:
This proposition should be de-
feated, as it is never wise to give any
entity — especially the Texas Leg-
islature — free rein to restrict indi-
viduals’ constitutionally protected
access to relief in the court systems.
This amendment gives the Legisla-
ture open-ended authority, a dan-
gerous precedent to set.
Proposition 13:
“The constitutional amendment
to permit counties, cities and
towns, and junior college districts
to establish an ad valorem tax
freeze on residence homesteads of
the disabled and of the elderly and
their spouses. ”
Explanation Of Proposition
Proposition 13 would add Art. 8,
sec. l-b(h), allowing the governing
bodies of counties, cities, towns, and
junior college districts to freeze the
amount of property taxes that could
be imposed on residential home-
steads owned by the elderly or dis-
abled. Property taxes could not
increase as long as the residences
were maintained as homesteads by
owners or their spouses who were
disabled or at least 65 years old. Al-
ternatively, upon receipt of a petition
signed by at least 5 percent of the
political subdivision’s registered vot-
ers, a local governing body would
have to call an election to determine
by majority vote whether to freeze
taxes for elderly and disabled home-
owners.
The amendment would allow the
Continued On Next Page
l'
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Smith, W. Leon. The Clifton Record (Clifton, Tex.), Vol. 108, No. 71, Ed. 1 Wednesday, September 3, 2003, newspaper, September 3, 2003; Clifton, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth791023/m1/5/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Nellie Pederson Civic Library.