Don't forget to vote! [Politics]

Please welcome new Austinist writers Chris Galis and Andrew Hilbert --Ed.

Psst! Today is Election Day. Yeah, that's right — as if you didn’t already have enough to do on a Tuesday, now you’ve got to vote. But wait, you may be thinking. How can it be Election Day? Where were the attack ads, the debates, the obnoxious direct mail flyers and robo-calls? Who stole the signs? And what are we voting for again?

To clarify, today's vote isn't for people—it's for numbers. Specifically, you'll be voting on ten amendments to the Texas Constitution, plus two Travis County bond propositions (The Austin Chronicle has a take on the bond issues here). The Austinist understands your pain and confusion, so Chris Galis and Andrew Hilbert have broken down today's Texas Constitutional Amendments Vote into a neat little guide. That way you know what you’re voting for and why.

Prop 1

Tax exemptions for the military and their families? Generally, a good thing. Prop 1 would allow legislators to extend tax exemptions to bereaved spouses of totally disabled veterans. Currently, the tax code fully exempts totally disabled veterans from any residential homestead tax. Prop 1 would extend that safety net to their surviving spouses, with limitations of course: the exemptions are only good for the original amount rewarded and if the spouse doesn’t remarry. This seems like a largely sensible and altruistic amendment, but proponents against the proposition are citing it as a misallocation of tax exemptions when other critical services such as education and health care are struggling.

How to decide: Do you want the state to give some tax breaks to surviving military spouses? Vote yes. Do you think that Prop 1 isn’t a great allocation of tax money given the state of our other state services? Vote no.

Prop 2

The Texas Water Development Board has quite a situation on their hands. How do you keep Texas’ water flowing with growing demand in the face of a statewide drought? Well, you could give out more money, $4 million more to be exact. Prop 2 would increase the TWDB’s bonding capacity from $2 million to a whopping $6 million and allow the agency to fund more water projects, infrastructure improvements and water treatment plants. The only problem is that this $4 million increase is somewhat of a concern. Those who oppose want a less drastic increase in bond capacity with frequent reviews on the effectiveness of the program. They also want more data on exactly how Texas’ water supply would hold up against $4 million more dollars of water infrastructure development and growth

How to decide: Do you want less constitutional amendment bureaucracy, and trust that the TWDB knows how to handle its bond money? Vote yes. Are you a fan of constant review of bond dollars and aren’t quite sold on how Texas water will hold up to such an increase in development? Vote no.

Prop 3

It’s not so much an issue with the Hinson-Hazlewood College Student Loan Program - which helps low-income students with low-interest rate loans to send them to Texas colleges - but an issue of timing. With massive funding cuts to financial aid and the fact that we’ve already voted “yes” to this in seven previous bond amendments, the answer seems pretty straightforward, but there are concerns about this amendment only increasing the state debt and default rate on more loans at a time when we're already in the red. Prop 3 will continue offering state bond dollars to HH while removing any caps on how much bond money they can give out, as long as it doesn’t exceed the previous amount approved by voters.

How to decide: Do you want to continue putting low-income students through college with manageable interest rates? Vote yes. Do you think that now isn’t really the best time to be putting people through school in an economy where loan default rates could prevent the program from being self supporting? Vote no.

Prop 4

“Tax increment financing” sounds like it could have a polarizing effect, but what the Texas Constitutional Amendment office is really trying to say with Prop 4 is that there could be some value in expanding the reach of rehabilitation from funds procured via property tax increases (note: these taxes are increasing proportionately with property value and not because of increased tax code). We already allow this repayment structure in towns and cities. Bringing it to the counties could facilitate more county/city-centric projects.

How to decide: Do you think that counties should be able to benefit from the same “tax increment financing” that cities and towns do? Vote yes. Are you what the Austin Chronicle calls an “anti-tax absolutist”, and do you think this leaves too much leeway for developers to manipulate tax financing? Vote no.

Prop 5

They run a tight ship down on the Texas Gulf Coast. If you're a city with a population over 5,000, you’re very limited by debt fund requirements. In fact, you’re not allowed to enter into a local government contract without putting in place tax revenues and funds that will reduce your debt and cover your interest. This, of course, restricts local governmental mobility. Prop 5 would allow a bit more breathing room to local governments to seek out longer contracts, consolidate their projects and ultimately reduce tax-payer burden.

How to decide: Do you think that local governments should be able to do business with less state oversight, and do you have an affinity for less bulky interlocal government contracts? Vote yes. Do you like the fact that there’s legislation that throttles how much debt a local government can take on even if it does kind of cramp local governments’ style? Vote no.

Prop 6

Prop 6 would allow for increased distributions from the Permanent School Fund, an endowment trust established to benefit Texas public education, to the Available School Fund which provides funding on a per-student basis to school districts. This would allow for revenue derived from public school lands to go directly to the ASF, permitting an increase of $300 million annually to the ASF.

How to decide: It's complicated, but basically Prop 6 frees up more funds from the PSF as well as making it easier to move them to local school districts. It's a spend it now vs. save it for later argument. If you think Texas public school needs require greater financial fluidity, then vote yes . Vote no, however, if you feel that students are better served by hanging on to the revenue for possible future needs.

Prop 7

Prop 7 is a region-specific amendment that would allow El Paso County to permit conservation and reclamation districts to issue bonds to fund the development of parks and recreational facilities. Most counties can do this--voting yes on this simply allows El Paso County to join their ranks. If you don't think El Paso deserves its own time zone AND autonomous park development, you'll vote no. Otherwise it just seems weird to stand in the way of this one. Viva El Paso!

How to decide: If you're concerned that merely proposing issuing bonds to pay for parks would constitute the first step down a slippery slope to higher taxes for El Paso citizens, then vote no. On the other hand, this is a city most memorably celebrated by Texas poet laureate and all-around Sensitive Guy Kinky Friedman. Don't they deserve a little greenspace?

Prop 8 would require the legislature to provide the option to tax lands appraised for open land use by their productive capacity rather than their full market value. It would add a "water stewardship valuation," for land already appraised for open land use. It would not decrease property taxes but gives landowners more options to engage in plans to improve water conservation efforts. Proponents of the amendment even say it doesn't do enough but it's a step in the right direction and we sure haven't seen a whole lot of rain lately. It's revenue neutral so it sure doesn't hurt to try and save the little water we've got.

How to decide: This amendment appears intended to gently encourage landowners to implement water conservation practices by providing tax breaks. Feel that any effort in this direction, no matter how small, is worthwhile? Vote yes. Vote no if... well, given that this proposition is designed to cost the state virtually nothing — and given the fact that some climatologists have predicted the current drought lasting until 2020 — it's hard to think of a reason to vote no. Your call.

Prop 9

Prop 9 would grant the governor authority to pardon, commute, or grant a reprieve to a person who "successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision." Currently, the governor can only pardon convicted felons. This amendment would allow him/her to pardon those charged but not convicted, thus expunging their records and eliminating possible barriers to future employment and other opportunities. Considering we're in Texas and our current governor doesn't lose any sleep over executing innocent people, don't count on this one being used all that much when Governor Good Hair doesn't become President Good Hair.

How to decide: Expunging someone's arrest record means that employers, banks, and other entities have no access to the past arrest history of that person. Feel that an individual who's successfully completed the deferred adjudication process, with community supervision, deserves a completely fresh start? Vote yes. If you feel that, say, future employers have a right to know about the past arrest record of a prospective employee, however, then vote no.

Prop 10

Prop 10 would amend the constitution to change the length of an unexpired term "that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office" from one year to one year and 30 days. Currently, officeholders who have more than a year left in their terms who announce candidacy for a different office have to automatically resign their current position because of recent changes to Texas election law's filing date. By providing for an extension of 30 days, Prop 10 would rectify that problem. Basically, it brings Texas election filing dates into line with recent changes imposed by the federal MOVE Act. Another way to look at it is that during those 30 days that they spend campaigning and not fulfilling the duties of their offices they can still draw a paycheck as if they were fulfilling those duties.

How to decide: this one's tough to argue against, since it's a technical tweak rather than a policy change. Those opposed to Prop 10 generally feel Texas' current resign-to-run policy should be ended rather than mended, since the policy only applies to county officials and is unfair in that respect. Unfortunately, that hypothetical proposition's not on the ballot this year. Vote yes for technical compliance, or no out of sheer cussedness.