May 7, 2022 Election

It's election time again (May 7, early voting starts tomorrow in Travis County). I'll have two state propositions and one city one. I keep changing my mind. Hopefully the research I've done will help you figure out how you want to vote. I've tried to put the most relevant information first for each item, so when you get sick of reading, just move to the next item.

Edited to add: for a much briefer description from a friend, skip to the first comment.

Texas Proposition 1, Property Tax Limit Reduction for Elderly and Disabled Residents Amendment - Bleh, this hurt my brain. But the goal is to help a previously passed property tax reduction also get passed on to homeowners over 65 or living with disabilities whose school taxes are frozen.

Per the League of Women Voters' 411.org, pros are allowing elderly and disabled homeowners, more likely to live on fixed incomes than others, to benefit from the lower tax rates passed in 2019. Some oppose this because some of those homeowners don't need the help, we shouldn't be using property taxes to fund public schools, and/or 'While school districts are to be reimbursed by the state for any revenues lost, the proposed amendment could reduce funds for public schools if proper formulas are not put in place.'

I'll vote yes because I approve of extending property tax relief to the elderly and disabled, given that other homeowners get this relief.

Texas Proposition 2, Increased Homestead Exemption for School District Property Taxes Amendment - The exemption would be increased from $25,000 to $40,000 (last increased from $15,000 in 2015 and from 5,000 in 1997) I guess keeping up with inflation. It's also considered progressive. (I'm guessing because it's a dollar amount rather than a percentage, so the savings will mean more to poor people. Like that time at UT when everyone got a $100/month raise, which was triple the usual raise for people like me, but rich people were angry about their puny raises.) Yet homeowners tend to be richer than renters, so it doesn't seem all that progressive to me.

Per the League of Women Voters' 411.org, 'The law related to this proposed amendment requires that the state reimburse school districts for revenues lost due to this proposition.'

Also per them, pros are that it provides property tax relief without reducing school funding. Cons are that maybe it will reduce school funding after all, and if not, it will cost the state money, plus it doesn't help renters.

The Austin Chronicle says "in many cases, this simply shifts the burden to renters."

Our real problem is that housing costs have gone through the roof. This proposition would make a tiny dent but only for homeowners (not landlords and thus it could not be passed on to renters). I don't understand why housing has gone crazy--apparently it's a supply and demand issue. And not just in Austin but all around the country. I've heard that there are zoning problems, not only that homeowners don't want denser housing in their own neighborhoods, but also that there are a bunch of laws that make cheaper things like tiny houses illegal.

Also, I've learned that not only are half of Austin's property taxes that are collected for schools going elsewhere because of the Robin Hood law (which I approve of), somehow Austin is losing far more money than any other district in Texas and per https://publicinput.com/P4753, 'Recapture payments actually go into the state’s general fund and are redistributed from there, so we have no way of knowing how much or how little of our local property tax collections go directly to school districts. But because the state’s education funding, called allotments, has been level over the last few years while the recapture payments have increased 30% without a corresponding increase in funding received by property-poor districts, it’s difficult to prove that any recapture funds are supplementing state allotments. In other words, we’re paying a lot more in school property taxes, but it looks like the state is using that money to balance their budget.'

So I've written to our state reps asking that this money actually go to other schools as promised.

I hope you now know how you're going to vote, because you probably shouldn't copy me. I guess I'll still tell you. I was going to vote no because this doesn't help renters, but instead I'm going to vote yes in response to that state theft of education money--this bill requires that state money come back to education.

Austin, Texas, Proposition A, Marijuana Decriminalization and Prohibit No-Knock Warrants Initiative - This is two different issues combined into one proposition.

1) Marijuana decriminalization - Per the League of Women Voters' 411.org, 'a person would not be arrested or cited for misdemeanor possession of marijuana in Austin unless the offense is tied to a more serious or violent crime. Also, the city will not test substances to determine if they are marijuana.'

Per The Austin Chronicle, all the relevant parties have already decriminalized personal-use possession in practice.

Marijuana is illegal in Texas, so this is creepy. I understand focusing limited resources on more important issues. And I understand codifying practices into law (I sure wish we'd passed a pro-choice law). And I understand that national changes generally start with local changes. But it still creeps me out.

So I researched decriminalization versus legalization. The former means there are still "civil" consequences such as fines or public service but you don't end up with a "criminal" record that can ruin your life. Also this applies only to possession and use; selling and manufacturing would still be criminalized. Arg, still creepy. But Austin would not be defying the law, just setting very low punishments. So I'm inclined to vote yes on this part of the proposition.

Oh yeah, and disclaimer - I hate all mind-altering drugs and wish no one wanted to do them. Yet people love doing them in every single culture I've ever read about, so obviously I'm a weirdo. And there are a lot fewer problems when drugs are legalized and regulated than when they aren't. And these drug laws were created to punish minorities and maybe hippies, not to protect people from drugs. So I'm pro legalizing mind-altering drugs, especially those with medical uses. Also, I find it very hard to believe the conclusions of this very scientific looking article, Legalization, Decriminalization & Medicinal Use of Cannabis: A Scientific and Public Health Perspective ("Empirical and clinical studies clearly demonstrate significant adverse effects of cannabis smoking on physical and mental health as well as its interference with social and occupational functioning. These negative data far outweigh a few documented benefits for a limited set of medical indications, for which safe and effective alternative treatments are readily available. If there is any medical role for cannabinoid drugs, it lies with chemically defined compounds, not with unprocessed cannabis plant. Legalization or medical use of smoked cannabis is likely to impose significant public health risks, including an increased risk of schizophrenia, psychosis, and other forms of substance use disorders.")

2) No-knock - Per the League of Women Voters' 411.org, '“no-knock” warrants would be banned for the Austin Police Department. Officers executing a warrant would be required to announce their presence and wait 15 seconds before entering a premises.'

Per The Austin Chronicle, Austin police can go for years at a time without executing a no-knock warrant. So again, this would be putting a general practice into law.

As we've seen time and time again in the news, no-knock warrants have been abused by police leading to murders. But what is the overall picture? Apparently these warrants were originally invented to fight crack cocaine, but now are used mostly to fight marijuana, and they have been found to be dangerous for both residents and police.

After reading Rappin' Thomas Wyatt's editorial in The Austin Villager (front page), I was inclined to vote no on this. "I'm all for knocking and announcing. But I’m not in agreement for police officers to wait 15 seconds before entering. ... giving a potential suspect that much time is putting police officers at unnecessary risk." He'd prefer a three-second wait.

But then I tried to find good data. Apparently there's not a lot of good data. But per CNN's There's a growing consensus in law enforcement over no-knock warrants: The risks outweigh the rewards, 'Experts said there are at least three other [safer] options departments have in serving high-risk warrants. Officers could follow someone away from their home and attempt custody on the street, which Eells called a "take down away." Another would be treating a warrant as if someone was barricaded in a home -- surround it, contact the person inside, and ask them to come out. Or officers could open the door, and, instead of going in, announce their presence and give the person inside a chance to come out.'

So, I'm inclined to vote yes for this part of the proposition, whew, the same as the other part!

In conclusion, I plan to vote yes.

Also it seems like our vote won't even matter on this proposition because both things are happening regardless. However, The Austin Chronicle disagrees: 'The best reason to get out and vote for it is to create a data point: "Austinites voted 99-to-1 to decriminalize cannabis." That will be useful as de jure legalization inches forward at the state and federal level. The second-best reason is to help Ground Game Texas, the group led by former congressional candidates Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver, prove its concept that organizing around hot-button social issues can work for progressives as well as conservatives; decent turnout on this election would help. (Nobody appears to be mobilizing opposition to this, so "99-to-1" is not really a joke.)'