Below are 10 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution that will be up for vote in November.
Compare these in general to the crap laws and regulations coming out of socialist states like California.

There may be one or two proposed amendments I might take issue with, but I think these provide a good example of the difference between a socialist state and a conservative state that actually cares about the people of this state.


Proposition 1 would loosen restrictions for municipal judges.

Proposition 2 is a proposal to establish the Economically Distressed Areas Program, which according to a state analysis, provides financial assistance for projects to develop water and wastewater services in economically distressed areas where those services or facilities don’t meet minimum state standards.

Proposition 3 would create a temporary property tax exemption for certain political subdivisions for property owners in areas declared by the governor as disaster areas.

Proposition 4 would prohibit the imposition of an individual income tax.

Proposition 5 would allocate 100% of the state’s sporting goods sales tax to state parks.

Proposition 6 would allow the state to increase the maximum bond amount authorized for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas by $3 billion.

Proposition 7 would double the funding the land board can transfer from the permanent fund to the available school fund each year.

Proposition 8 would create a flood infrastructure fund to allow the Texas Water Development Board to pay for drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects.

Proposition 9 would allow the state to exempt precious metals held in a depository from being taxed as property.

Proposition 10 would make it easier for law enforcement animals to be transferred to their handlers after the animals retire

In most states those wouldn't rise to the level of constitutional amendments, but our constitution is huge and contains a lot of stuff not usually in constitutions. It is also relatively easy to amend.

But several of those are a good idea.

I'm curious why the state Constitution would need to be changed versus changing the public law.

P1 - what kind of restrictions are being loosened?
P3 - change a state constitution to create temporary property tax exemptions?

numbert 4 is the only one that should be an ammendment.

Florida has the same issue / problem. The constitution is huge, too easy to amend, and is full of shit that ought to be public laws, and not the constitution.

While I agree with the OP that most of these amendments are reasonable, why can't the legislature cure many of these with laws? Prop 9 is a special interest prop; Prop 10 needs a statewide vote for a constitutional amendment? Jeez.

Florida's CRC (Constitution Revision Commission) is being attacked by bi-partisan groups again this year for being a "Star Chamber" that does strange things every 20 years with no oversight. In 2018 they "bundled" amendments: popular ones and unrelated whacky or special interest ones were voted up or down together. In 2002 the so-called "Pregnant Pigs" amendment passed, again making Florida the laughing stock of the nation. I do see the need for citizen's input when legislatures are in the control of special interests but nowadays the special interests are making law through constitutional amendments. Texas is a republic: not a democracy.

We need to see a constitutional amendment eliminating the ability to vote to amend the state constitution.

These create a mob rules democracy one that make the rules, if so, then we don't need a legislature to make law.

As stated in FL and its become the defacto method of special interests wanting laws changed they can't get through Tallahassee.

The latest attempt is by gun grabbers who want to ban AR and semi auto firearms and while there are millions of gun owners, there are millions more who are not.

You can bet it will be written in a manner to look non threatening to gun rights and misleading in its real meaning.

Everyone done here has been impossible to understand without doing a major google fu
and 90% get their info from print media, we know that's bias, or just don't check the box since they don't understand them...

One such example was the banning of Greyhound racing in the state, this was proposed under the guise of stopping dog racing and improper treatment of Greyhounds, which wasn't the problem, nor the goal.

By eliminating the Greyhound tracks, OTB would be moved to indian reservations, it was a gambling bill disguised as animal rights, it was nothing to do about dogs, dog treatment or dog racing. It was a para mutual betting amendment taking one type of gambling from one group and giving it to another.

And it passed because 99% of those that voted for it had no clue....

Had a friend proudly tell me he voted for it to eliminate dog racing and mistreatment of dogs.
He had no clue it was about betting, not dogs...

When I received the list in the OP by mail the other day I too was surprised that these were proposed constitutional amendments vs laws. So valid points. But, laws don’t get voted on by the population but the amendments do. So maybe that’s a good way to look at it.

And you do have to read the details of each one to understand what the proposition or law is really doing. Most people don’t do so and vote for something that sounds good without understanding what the law or amendment is really doing.

What struck me most was was how these amendments compare to crap I’ve heard Governor Newsome doing in California, for example. So even the worst of any of the 10 are probably better than anything coming out of California with the exception of one.