How to Vote

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

Dunno what it means on your ballot, but this sounds like something that would be proposed in California as a way to pretend our brazillion bond measure propositions wouldn't really result in debt.

Here's the analysis from the Texas Legislative Council - part of a 64 page pdf I tried to read before the election, but which put me to sleep before I got to page two. Just FYI, I still haven't read what I'm pasting here but I'll look at it tomorrow.

Amendment No. 3 (H.J.R. No. 80)

Wording of Ballot Proposition:

The constitutional amendment clarifying that certain economic
development programs do not constitute a debt.

Analysis of Proposed Amendment:

The proposed amendment amends Section 52-a, Article III, Texas
Constitution, to provide that a program created or a loan or grant made as
provided by that section, other than a program, loan, or grant secured by a
pledge of ad valorem taxes or fi nanced by the issuance of bonds or other
obligations payable from ad valorem taxes, does not constitute or create
a debt for the purpose of any provision of the Texas Constitution.

Background

Section 52-a, Article III, Texas Constitution, authorizes the legislature
to provide for the use of public money for economic development
purposes. This provision is an exception to the general rule provided by
Section 52, Article III, Texas Constitution, which prohibits the legislature
from authorizing a political subdivision of the state to lend credit or grant
public money to an individual, association, or corporation.

As authorized by Section 52-a, Article III, Texas Constitution, the
legislature enacted Chapter 380, Local Government Code, to allow the
governing body of a municipality to establish and administer a program
“to promote state or local economic development and to stimulate business
and commercial activity in the municipality,” including a program for
making loans and grants of public money.

Recently, a state district court held that an agreement under Chapter
380, Local Government Code, in which a municipality agreed to rebate
certain taxes to a developer over a period exceeding one year, created an
unconstitutional debt. This holding could be interpreted as prohibiting
municipalities from granting or promising public funds for economic
development under a long-term agreement. House Joint Resolution No.
80 proposes a constitutional amendment that addresses this decision by
clarifying that an economic development program created or a loan or
grant made under Section 52-a, Article III, Texas Constitution, is not an
unconstitutional debt if the program, grant, or loan is not secured by a
pledge of ad valorem taxes or fi nanced by the issuance of bonds or other
obligations payable from ad valorem taxes.

Arguments For:

1. Expressly affi rming the legality of long-term economic development
programs will have a positive effect on the economy of this state.
Agreements between municipalities and private persons under Chapter
380, Local Government Code, provide a variety of economic development
programs that attract new business, resulting in increased employment and
tax revenue for the municipality and the state. Any uncertainty regarding
the legality of these agreements is a disincentive for a business to enter into
such an agreement in this state because the business cannot predict whether
the municipality will be able to perform the municipality’s obligations
under the agreement. This uncertainty may result in a business locating
in a state in which such agreements are more clearly authorized by law.

2. Economic development agreements between municipalities and
private persons providing for the rebate of certain taxes are legal under
current law; the proposed amendment merely clarifi es the original intent of
the legislature and the voters of this state in adding Section 52-a, Article
III, to the constitution.

Arguments Against:

1. Adopting this amendment undermines the constitutional protections
for taxpayers regarding the creation of public debt. If the constitution is
amended to provide that any long-term economic development agreement
that is not secured by a pledge of ad valorem taxes or fi nanced by the
issuance of bonds does not create debt, future governing bodies may
be bound by agreements that they consider bad public policy, such as
agreements that encourage the creation of low-paying jobs or agreements
that reward development that would have taken place without the
incentives, that were entered into without the constitutional requirements
regarding the issuance of debt.

2. It is unnecessary to take the extreme step of amending the state
constitution to address concerns raised by a single lower-court case. The
recent district court ruling that an agreement under Chapter 380, Local
Government Code, created an “unconstitutional debt,” applies only to the
narrow circumstances of that case. This one-page ruling does not explain
why the agreement created an unconstitutional debt, so it is unclear
whether this proposed amendment would solve the problems created by the
specifi c agreement at issue in the case. Furthermore, the district court’s
ruling is subject to appeal.

Thanks for the sticker offer, freemonkey, but I'll pass. There's nothing to celebrate. Prop 2 passed with an overwhelming majority... 77% last I checked. Marriage is now constitutionally guaranteed to involve only one each male and female Texan. Odd as that might be in a state full of steers and queers.