November 2021 General Election
Oct. 6th, 2021 08:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebI think for propositions, a lot of people wait until they are voting to read the propositions for the first time and make their decisions on the spot. For this election, my first impression of what the propositions mean or might mean often do not match what they actually mean. I am a weirdo; maybe they make perfect sense to you. Let's find out.
CITY OF AUSTIN
Proposition A - the police staffing mandate
[First impression: improve our police force, perhaps by fighting racism, improving de-escalation training, and holding them accountable.]
Wrong - The "minimum standards" are about about quantity, not quality--we must hire more police. This proposition is a response to the idea of defunding police from people who think that the only way to fight crime is having police. This turns out to be a very political and divisive issue, plus it's a multi-part proposition, so I have made a whole separate post on it.
But mandating an increase of the already large proportion of the city budget to hire more police officers than ever before, forever, regardless of what's going on with crime or the economy, is something I am going to vote against.
Proposition B - The park land one.
[First impression: There's some kind of switcheroo in park land that the city has to get our permission on for some reason.]
State law requires voter approval for the sale of public parks. This proposition is the result of an unsolicited bid from a secret bidder (all evidence points to Oracle America who is adjacent to the property, has made a bid for it, and is the nearly sole contributor to the PAC Grow Austin Parks). The property to be sold is nine acres off South Lakeshore Drive, east of I-35, near Pleasant Valley, which is currently being used for a maintenance facility.
In return, this proposition would require that Austin get 48 acres of land adjacent to a current public park. Specifically, the park they are talking about is John Treviño Jr. Park, north of the river, between 183 and the 130 toll road. It appears to not actually be a park yet but an acquired ranch that is being turned into a park (and the plans look really cool to me). The piece of land they are talking about is the current location of Driveway Austin Motorsports (also being secretive) mostly within the western part of the park. I'm not sure how environmentally awesome a race track is.
In addition, the bidder must pay to remove the maintenance facility currently at Fiesta Gardens (almost just across the river from the 9-acre piece of land), restore it to parkland, and build a new one on some other city property. Specifically, Oracle is offering $17 million to cover the cost for this.
Opponents say this would void all the work done in the 1980s and '90s to designate this property as parkland with the intention that in the future, city facilities would be removed to allow better views, access and green space for residents. They also say that the sale would lead southeast Austin residents to lose valuable access to the lake. And they say the city can already afford to do all the mentioned improvements themselves because they still have 81% of the money from the $149 million they got for park acquisitions and improvements as the result of an earlier election.
I'm voting against.
STATE OF TEXAS
Proposition 1 - the rodeo raffle one
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the professional sports team charitable foundations of organizations sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association or the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association to conduct charitable raffles at rodeo venues.”
[First impression: This seems crazy specific. And I don't care.]
Supporters are excited to offer a new way to raise money for charities by giving rodeos the same permission as other previously listed sporting events to hold charitable raffles. Others are not excited about a new way for gambling to hurt families. It requires an update to the constitution because of Texas gambling laws.
I have no idea how much additional charity happiness or gambling misery was generated by the previous law. Per CalNonprofits, the money involved might be pretty small potatoes.
I'm inclined to abstain. (I oppose gambling, I think raffles are boring (even if it's a door prize and I have a chance of winning), I'm pro free-will, and I think the people who go to rodeos should decide.)
Proposition 2 - the blight development one
“The constitutional amendment authorizing a county to finance the development or redevelopment of transportation or infrastructure in unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted areas in the county.”
[First impression: Aren't counties allowed to finance anything, in any part of the county? Is this about fixing poor areas or about destroying them for freeways and factories?]
After reading the details in Ballotpedia, I still don't know.
(Check out this weirdness: A "no" vote opposes amending the state constitution, thereby maintaining that only cities and towns may issue bonds to fund transportation and infrastructure projects in blighted areas.'
And per the 1981 bond that let cities and towns do this, 'A blighted area is defined in Texas statute as: 'An area that is not a slum area, but that, because of deteriorating buildings, structures, or other improvements; defective or inadequate streets, street layout, or accessibility; unsanitary conditions; or other hazardous conditions, adversely affects the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the municipality and its residents, substantially retards the provision of a sound and healthful housing environment, or results in an economic or social liability to the municipality. The term includes an area certified as a disaster area.'
Well, now I wonder what counts as a slum.)
Per vote411.org, supporters want counties as well as cities and towns to be able to address much-needed infrastructure issues, and doing this will raise property values and thus tax revenues. Those opposed say debt and property taxes are already too high, and that "These transportation and infrastructure projects could divert revenues that may go to other government services or projects." So that sounds like it's about actual improvements.
The Austin Chronicle explains, 'in many places in Texas the county is the only local government that should or could be in the infrastructure business, and this measure eliminates barriers that keep counties from using debt financing to build infrastructure in the same ways cities do routinely.' Aha, so it's also about debt financing.
I'm voting for.
Proposition 3 - the church specialness one
“The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”
First impression: Painful double negative! The state can't prohibit or limit religious services of religious organizations. No matter what? What counts as services? Seances? Burning witches? What counts as limiting? Can they have church anywhere they want? Can they force anyone to participate? Does that mean anyone can come in my house to try an exorcism?
It turns out it's about keeping church services open during disasters, even pandemics, and because if liquor stores get to say open, so should churches. But their reasoning is that churches provide essential services. And indeed they do, but this proposition is not about helping out people in trouble or any other cool thing churches do except for religious services.
I can't help thinking of that meme:
Did previous civilizations deal with whiners like this?
"Man, we've gotta open the gates."
"We've been through this, Phil. The Mongols are still outside."
"But I've gotta harvest my turnips"
"MONGOLS"
"Ugh. But we've been in here for WEEKS."
"That's how sieges work, Phil."
"But the Mongols have barely killed anyone in days."
"That's because of the walls, Phil."
"Are you sure? Maybe the Mongols aren't that dangerous."
"..."
"I'm just saying, how bad could it be? They can't kill ALL of us."
"That is literally the thing they do."
"But my turnips..."
To clarify...: no one is saying that we don't need turnips, or that Phil isn't hungry. It's just that you can't ignore reality just because it isn't the reality that gets you what you want.
We all want to leave. But your exit 'strategy' will get us killed.'
So I oppose making a law that says we can't limit gatherings in churches when there is a pandemic. Especially since you can still have services in the parking lot with masks and separated chairs and you can have services online and people can still worship on their own.
If you're stilling thinking you're for this, here are a few details.
The actual wording of the addition to the Constitution would be "Sec.6-a. This state or a political subdivision of this state may not enact, adopt, or issue a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that prohibits or limits religious services, including religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and places of worship, in this state by a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief."
So if my sincerely held religious belief is that we need to sacrifice a virgin to appease the gods so that they'll stop the pandemic, does this make it okay? I think we already have laws that say that religions can't violate laws. But then if there were a law that you can't gather in crowds anywhere, would this change even matter? I don't understand. Here are some more thoughts from people who do:
Rep. John Turner (D) worries that, "for instance, that would mean there could never be any restrictions on capacity." Per Texas lawmakers hope to exclude places of worship from emergency closures after COVID-19 pandemic shuttered doors: Even some religious groups are opposed to Texas legislation that would bar government officials from closing places of worship in any situation — even during a pandemic. (4/28/21), 'The court decided that government officials couldn’t close churches unless they were also closing down other, nonreligious organizations. HB 1239 would not allow government officials to shutter places of worship in any situation.
From the same source, Douglas Laycock, an expert on religious freedom policy at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, says “This bill is absolute. It says it doesn't matter how crowded the church is, it doesn't matter how high the infection rate is, it doesn't matter how deadly the disease is.” Laycock also worries the bill could have unintended consequences in rarer occasions, such as emergency evacuations or when criminal conduct is involved.
Under the existing Religious Freedom Act of Texas, “compelling” government interest allows for state involvement in places of worship. In rare situations, this applies to criminal activity, such as the alleged child abuse occurring at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in the 1990s.
...In response to Turner’s concerns, many of the representatives who voted to advance the bill repeatedly said it was unfair how “strip clubs, bars and liquor stores” were allowed to remain open while places of worship were limited. Under local stay-at-home orders, restaurants remained open for takeout at low capacities, and some bars began selling food to qualify as restaurants.
...27 national groups across faiths including Christianity, Judaism and Islam signed a letter opposing legislation “seeking to exempt houses of worship and religious gatherings from the reach of regulations and emergency orders related to public health issues,”' saying it '“appears to be a drastic overreaction to some legitimate concerns.”'
Also, per Trevor Noah's Why Is Everyone Asking for Religious Vaccine Exemptions?, US law lets you claim that basically anything is a religious belief.
I'm voting against.
Proposition 4 - the judge eligibility one
“The constitutional amendment changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.”
[First impression: To what? Why?]
For the first three, they must have been practicing law for at least ten years; the proposal is that they must also have been licensed in the state of Texas for at least ten years during which the license to practice law must not have been revoked or suspended.
For district judges, currently, the candidate must be a U.S. citizen licensed to practice law in Texas with at least four years of experience; the proposal requires Texas residency and increases that experience to eight years.
I know very little about what is required for competence in these jobs, but all of it sounds like it could help except for the Texas residency.
Per Vote411.org, supporters say "Increasing the required number of years of legal experience for district court judges could result in a better qualified Texas judiciary" and "The quality and reputation of the Texas judiciary could be enhanced by the requirement that a judge’s license cannot have been revoked or suspended." Note that they don't even mention the Texas residency.
Opponents say, "The requirement of additional years of experience as an attorney could adversely impact the diversity (age, race, gender, etc.) of judicial candidates and judges." and "The amendment would restrict the size of the pool of candidates eligible to run for the judicial positions, which could result in a judiciary that does not reflect the population.
"I wish I knew what prompted this and whether it is hard to find qualified people to run. Hmm, The Austin Chronicle thinks they know why: now that GOP has "started losing court elections en masse to Democratic slates in the urban counties," they've made this proposal "which would make it substantially harder for younger, more diverse, and dare we say more progressive lawyers to become judges in Texas."
I'm voting against.
Proposition 5 - the candidate discipline one
“The constitutional amendment providing additional powers to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with respect to candidates for judicial office.”
[First impression: To disallow bad apples?]
Sort of. Per Ballotpedia, "Currently, the Texas Constitution authorizes the commission to discipline sitting judges through letters of caution, private sanctions, public sanctions, resignation instead of discipline, suspensions, public admonition, public warning, or public reprimand." This amendment would allow the same for candidates.
Per Representative Jacey Jetton (R), the author of the amendment: "There is an inherent unfairness in judicial elections when a candidate runs for judicial office against an incumbent because judges are subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct, but candidates are not.
Per vote411.org, supporters say this makes elections more fair and provide for "better screening of candidates and judges. ... Opponents say this amendment is unnecessary. Those who have complaints of misconduct against judicial candidates can file them with other authorities, such as the State Bar, the Attorney General, or the appropriate District Attorney for investigation and action" and "Adding complaints against judicial candidates to the Commission on Judicial Conduct could overburden the Commission and its staff with new cases."
The Austin Chronicle thinks this is another way to game the system. They think it sounds good in the abstract but "In practice, this is a recipe for chaos and mischief designed to give rival campaigns a chance to go negative without real consequence.' I still don't get it.
I'm inclined to abstain.
Proposition 6 - the caregiver one
“The constitutional amendment establishing a right for residents of certain facilities to designate an essential caregiver for in-person visitation.”
[First impression: This sounds like a pro-gay thing except for caregivers instead of same-sex spouses. What counts as an essential caregiver? A doctor? A masseur or chiropractor? An excorcist? A tone therapist? And why is this about visitation and not care-giving?]
This is another response to the restriction against non-essential visitors to nursing facilities during the pandemic. And an "essential caregiver" is any person of your choice, probably a relative or friend rather than someone specifically trained in some sort of medical care. (So it is like a pro-gay thing except for any kind of person you want to visit you.) They would have to let one outsider of your choice visit you, even in a pandemic, but they can make rules about what that person has to do.
So how is this different? Per https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-07-03/nursing-home-families-want-answers-as-covid-comes-back/ (7/3/20) - There already 'are opportunities for greater contact under existing rules, such as when a resident is dying – something family members ... may not know and nursing homes may not be honoring. That possibility concerns state ombudsman Patty Ducayet, who told the Chronicle she has heard about families only being allowed one end-of-life visit, of hospice providers being denied access, and of a clergy member not being allowed to provide religious services – actions she finds questionable, if not in violation of existing state requirements.
'...She has also recommended that compassionate care visits be defined to include not just end-of-life situations, but cases in which residents have disorders that cause progressive decline, like Alzheimer's, and whenever there are significant changes in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status. On June 23 [2020], CMS [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services] clarified its position that "compassionate care" does not just refer to end-of-life.'
And in stories I've read of people with relatives in nursing homes, mostly their problem seemed to be about poor management in general, so I'm voting against.
Proposition 7 - the disabled person's widow(er) property tax limitation one.
“The constitutional amendment to allow the surviving spouse of a person who is disabled to receive a limitation on the school district ad valorem taxes on the spouse’s residence homestead if the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person’s death.”
[First impression: Sorry your disabled spouse died. Especially if you couldn't afford life insurance, but could afford a house. Regardless, to show our condolences, we will almost literally take candy away from a school child and give it to you.]
Okay at first it sounds like one of those incremental attachments to old laws: This special limitation already exists when the deceased spouse was at least 65. This expands it to cover spouses of deceased people who were only 55 but also disabled.
But per vote411.org, "The proposed amendment is needed because in 2019, the Tax Code was updated to allow this tax limitation for surviving spouses of disabled persons, but the Legislature failed to authorize a proposed constitutional amendment. Some counties followed the Tax Code and some did not. For those that did not, eligible surviving spouses may be due a refund."
Also per vote411.org, supporters say "This amendment would protect the surviving spouse of a disabled person from losing an important benefit" and "The proposition validates a state law already passed and clarifies that the law is to be enforced." Opponents say "The passage could reduce tax revenues for school districts and other local taxing authorities" and "Any lower property values could decrease revenue and affect the state school funding formulas."
I don't feel strongly about this one, but I like The Austin Chronicle's take which is "We are all for making it easier for taxing entities in Texas to account for personal hardship; we do not think that linking favorable tax treatment to moralistic virtue signaling is the way to go. Our democracy is in crisis precisely because the people who run this place want to preserve the benefits of good government for whom they deem the right kind of people; this is more of that, and it should be rejected."
So I'm voting against.
Proposition 8 - the military widow(er) property tax exemption one
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.”
[First impression: Because the government won't pay out life insurance or a pension, the least we can do as a state is to reduce the local property taxes you pay--if you have a house. This is just weird.]
This is one of those incremental attachments to old laws: there's already such an exemption for surviving spouses of those who are killed in action--this would also cover spouses of those killed during non-combat-related service such as during training or other military duties.
Per Vote411.org, supporters say it shouldn't matter how someone died because of their military service. Opponents say "Many more military are killed in the line of duty than are killed in action. The estimated potential loss of tax revenue could be significant," possibly affecting the state school funding formula or increasing the tax burden for other property owners.
I'm voting against.
CITY OF AUSTIN
Proposition A - the police staffing mandate
[First impression: improve our police force, perhaps by fighting racism, improving de-escalation training, and holding them accountable.]
Wrong - The "minimum standards" are about about quantity, not quality--we must hire more police. This proposition is a response to the idea of defunding police from people who think that the only way to fight crime is having police. This turns out to be a very political and divisive issue, plus it's a multi-part proposition, so I have made a whole separate post on it.
But mandating an increase of the already large proportion of the city budget to hire more police officers than ever before, forever, regardless of what's going on with crime or the economy, is something I am going to vote against.
Proposition B - The park land one.
[First impression: There's some kind of switcheroo in park land that the city has to get our permission on for some reason.]
State law requires voter approval for the sale of public parks. This proposition is the result of an unsolicited bid from a secret bidder (all evidence points to Oracle America who is adjacent to the property, has made a bid for it, and is the nearly sole contributor to the PAC Grow Austin Parks). The property to be sold is nine acres off South Lakeshore Drive, east of I-35, near Pleasant Valley, which is currently being used for a maintenance facility.
In return, this proposition would require that Austin get 48 acres of land adjacent to a current public park. Specifically, the park they are talking about is John Treviño Jr. Park, north of the river, between 183 and the 130 toll road. It appears to not actually be a park yet but an acquired ranch that is being turned into a park (and the plans look really cool to me). The piece of land they are talking about is the current location of Driveway Austin Motorsports (also being secretive) mostly within the western part of the park. I'm not sure how environmentally awesome a race track is.
In addition, the bidder must pay to remove the maintenance facility currently at Fiesta Gardens (almost just across the river from the 9-acre piece of land), restore it to parkland, and build a new one on some other city property. Specifically, Oracle is offering $17 million to cover the cost for this.
Opponents say this would void all the work done in the 1980s and '90s to designate this property as parkland with the intention that in the future, city facilities would be removed to allow better views, access and green space for residents. They also say that the sale would lead southeast Austin residents to lose valuable access to the lake. And they say the city can already afford to do all the mentioned improvements themselves because they still have 81% of the money from the $149 million they got for park acquisitions and improvements as the result of an earlier election.
I'm voting against.
STATE OF TEXAS
Proposition 1 - the rodeo raffle one
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the professional sports team charitable foundations of organizations sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association or the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association to conduct charitable raffles at rodeo venues.”
[First impression: This seems crazy specific. And I don't care.]
Supporters are excited to offer a new way to raise money for charities by giving rodeos the same permission as other previously listed sporting events to hold charitable raffles. Others are not excited about a new way for gambling to hurt families. It requires an update to the constitution because of Texas gambling laws.
I have no idea how much additional charity happiness or gambling misery was generated by the previous law. Per CalNonprofits, the money involved might be pretty small potatoes.
I'm inclined to abstain. (I oppose gambling, I think raffles are boring (even if it's a door prize and I have a chance of winning), I'm pro free-will, and I think the people who go to rodeos should decide.)
Proposition 2 - the blight development one
“The constitutional amendment authorizing a county to finance the development or redevelopment of transportation or infrastructure in unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted areas in the county.”
[First impression: Aren't counties allowed to finance anything, in any part of the county? Is this about fixing poor areas or about destroying them for freeways and factories?]
After reading the details in Ballotpedia, I still don't know.
(Check out this weirdness: A "no" vote opposes amending the state constitution, thereby maintaining that only cities and towns may issue bonds to fund transportation and infrastructure projects in blighted areas.'
And per the 1981 bond that let cities and towns do this, 'A blighted area is defined in Texas statute as: 'An area that is not a slum area, but that, because of deteriorating buildings, structures, or other improvements; defective or inadequate streets, street layout, or accessibility; unsanitary conditions; or other hazardous conditions, adversely affects the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the municipality and its residents, substantially retards the provision of a sound and healthful housing environment, or results in an economic or social liability to the municipality. The term includes an area certified as a disaster area.'
Well, now I wonder what counts as a slum.)
Per vote411.org, supporters want counties as well as cities and towns to be able to address much-needed infrastructure issues, and doing this will raise property values and thus tax revenues. Those opposed say debt and property taxes are already too high, and that "These transportation and infrastructure projects could divert revenues that may go to other government services or projects." So that sounds like it's about actual improvements.
The Austin Chronicle explains, 'in many places in Texas the county is the only local government that should or could be in the infrastructure business, and this measure eliminates barriers that keep counties from using debt financing to build infrastructure in the same ways cities do routinely.' Aha, so it's also about debt financing.
I'm voting for.
Proposition 3 - the church specialness one
“The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”
First impression: Painful double negative! The state can't prohibit or limit religious services of religious organizations. No matter what? What counts as services? Seances? Burning witches? What counts as limiting? Can they have church anywhere they want? Can they force anyone to participate? Does that mean anyone can come in my house to try an exorcism?
It turns out it's about keeping church services open during disasters, even pandemics, and because if liquor stores get to say open, so should churches. But their reasoning is that churches provide essential services. And indeed they do, but this proposition is not about helping out people in trouble or any other cool thing churches do except for religious services.
I can't help thinking of that meme:
Did previous civilizations deal with whiners like this?
"Man, we've gotta open the gates."
"We've been through this, Phil. The Mongols are still outside."
"But I've gotta harvest my turnips"
"MONGOLS"
"Ugh. But we've been in here for WEEKS."
"That's how sieges work, Phil."
"But the Mongols have barely killed anyone in days."
"That's because of the walls, Phil."
"Are you sure? Maybe the Mongols aren't that dangerous."
"..."
"I'm just saying, how bad could it be? They can't kill ALL of us."
"That is literally the thing they do."
"But my turnips..."
To clarify...: no one is saying that we don't need turnips, or that Phil isn't hungry. It's just that you can't ignore reality just because it isn't the reality that gets you what you want.
We all want to leave. But your exit 'strategy' will get us killed.'
So I oppose making a law that says we can't limit gatherings in churches when there is a pandemic. Especially since you can still have services in the parking lot with masks and separated chairs and you can have services online and people can still worship on their own.
If you're stilling thinking you're for this, here are a few details.
The actual wording of the addition to the Constitution would be "Sec.6-a. This state or a political subdivision of this state may not enact, adopt, or issue a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that prohibits or limits religious services, including religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and places of worship, in this state by a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief."
So if my sincerely held religious belief is that we need to sacrifice a virgin to appease the gods so that they'll stop the pandemic, does this make it okay? I think we already have laws that say that religions can't violate laws. But then if there were a law that you can't gather in crowds anywhere, would this change even matter? I don't understand. Here are some more thoughts from people who do:
Rep. John Turner (D) worries that, "for instance, that would mean there could never be any restrictions on capacity." Per Texas lawmakers hope to exclude places of worship from emergency closures after COVID-19 pandemic shuttered doors: Even some religious groups are opposed to Texas legislation that would bar government officials from closing places of worship in any situation — even during a pandemic. (4/28/21), 'The court decided that government officials couldn’t close churches unless they were also closing down other, nonreligious organizations. HB 1239 would not allow government officials to shutter places of worship in any situation.
From the same source, Douglas Laycock, an expert on religious freedom policy at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, says “This bill is absolute. It says it doesn't matter how crowded the church is, it doesn't matter how high the infection rate is, it doesn't matter how deadly the disease is.” Laycock also worries the bill could have unintended consequences in rarer occasions, such as emergency evacuations or when criminal conduct is involved.
Under the existing Religious Freedom Act of Texas, “compelling” government interest allows for state involvement in places of worship. In rare situations, this applies to criminal activity, such as the alleged child abuse occurring at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in the 1990s.
...In response to Turner’s concerns, many of the representatives who voted to advance the bill repeatedly said it was unfair how “strip clubs, bars and liquor stores” were allowed to remain open while places of worship were limited. Under local stay-at-home orders, restaurants remained open for takeout at low capacities, and some bars began selling food to qualify as restaurants.
...27 national groups across faiths including Christianity, Judaism and Islam signed a letter opposing legislation “seeking to exempt houses of worship and religious gatherings from the reach of regulations and emergency orders related to public health issues,”' saying it '“appears to be a drastic overreaction to some legitimate concerns.”'
Also, per Trevor Noah's Why Is Everyone Asking for Religious Vaccine Exemptions?, US law lets you claim that basically anything is a religious belief.
I'm voting against.
Proposition 4 - the judge eligibility one
“The constitutional amendment changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.”
[First impression: To what? Why?]
For the first three, they must have been practicing law for at least ten years; the proposal is that they must also have been licensed in the state of Texas for at least ten years during which the license to practice law must not have been revoked or suspended.
For district judges, currently, the candidate must be a U.S. citizen licensed to practice law in Texas with at least four years of experience; the proposal requires Texas residency and increases that experience to eight years.
I know very little about what is required for competence in these jobs, but all of it sounds like it could help except for the Texas residency.
Per Vote411.org, supporters say "Increasing the required number of years of legal experience for district court judges could result in a better qualified Texas judiciary" and "The quality and reputation of the Texas judiciary could be enhanced by the requirement that a judge’s license cannot have been revoked or suspended." Note that they don't even mention the Texas residency.
Opponents say, "The requirement of additional years of experience as an attorney could adversely impact the diversity (age, race, gender, etc.) of judicial candidates and judges." and "The amendment would restrict the size of the pool of candidates eligible to run for the judicial positions, which could result in a judiciary that does not reflect the population.
"I wish I knew what prompted this and whether it is hard to find qualified people to run. Hmm, The Austin Chronicle thinks they know why: now that GOP has "started losing court elections en masse to Democratic slates in the urban counties," they've made this proposal "which would make it substantially harder for younger, more diverse, and dare we say more progressive lawyers to become judges in Texas."
I'm voting against.
Proposition 5 - the candidate discipline one
“The constitutional amendment providing additional powers to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with respect to candidates for judicial office.”
[First impression: To disallow bad apples?]
Sort of. Per Ballotpedia, "Currently, the Texas Constitution authorizes the commission to discipline sitting judges through letters of caution, private sanctions, public sanctions, resignation instead of discipline, suspensions, public admonition, public warning, or public reprimand." This amendment would allow the same for candidates.
Per Representative Jacey Jetton (R), the author of the amendment: "There is an inherent unfairness in judicial elections when a candidate runs for judicial office against an incumbent because judges are subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct, but candidates are not.
Per vote411.org, supporters say this makes elections more fair and provide for "better screening of candidates and judges. ... Opponents say this amendment is unnecessary. Those who have complaints of misconduct against judicial candidates can file them with other authorities, such as the State Bar, the Attorney General, or the appropriate District Attorney for investigation and action" and "Adding complaints against judicial candidates to the Commission on Judicial Conduct could overburden the Commission and its staff with new cases."
The Austin Chronicle thinks this is another way to game the system. They think it sounds good in the abstract but "In practice, this is a recipe for chaos and mischief designed to give rival campaigns a chance to go negative without real consequence.' I still don't get it.
I'm inclined to abstain.
Proposition 6 - the caregiver one
“The constitutional amendment establishing a right for residents of certain facilities to designate an essential caregiver for in-person visitation.”
[First impression: This sounds like a pro-gay thing except for caregivers instead of same-sex spouses. What counts as an essential caregiver? A doctor? A masseur or chiropractor? An excorcist? A tone therapist? And why is this about visitation and not care-giving?]
This is another response to the restriction against non-essential visitors to nursing facilities during the pandemic. And an "essential caregiver" is any person of your choice, probably a relative or friend rather than someone specifically trained in some sort of medical care. (So it is like a pro-gay thing except for any kind of person you want to visit you.) They would have to let one outsider of your choice visit you, even in a pandemic, but they can make rules about what that person has to do.
So how is this different? Per https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-07-03/nursing-home-families-want-answers-as-covid-comes-back/ (7/3/20) - There already 'are opportunities for greater contact under existing rules, such as when a resident is dying – something family members ... may not know and nursing homes may not be honoring. That possibility concerns state ombudsman Patty Ducayet, who told the Chronicle she has heard about families only being allowed one end-of-life visit, of hospice providers being denied access, and of a clergy member not being allowed to provide religious services – actions she finds questionable, if not in violation of existing state requirements.
'...She has also recommended that compassionate care visits be defined to include not just end-of-life situations, but cases in which residents have disorders that cause progressive decline, like Alzheimer's, and whenever there are significant changes in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status. On June 23 [2020], CMS [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services] clarified its position that "compassionate care" does not just refer to end-of-life.'
And in stories I've read of people with relatives in nursing homes, mostly their problem seemed to be about poor management in general, so I'm voting against.
Proposition 7 - the disabled person's widow(er) property tax limitation one.
“The constitutional amendment to allow the surviving spouse of a person who is disabled to receive a limitation on the school district ad valorem taxes on the spouse’s residence homestead if the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person’s death.”
[First impression: Sorry your disabled spouse died. Especially if you couldn't afford life insurance, but could afford a house. Regardless, to show our condolences, we will almost literally take candy away from a school child and give it to you.]
Okay at first it sounds like one of those incremental attachments to old laws: This special limitation already exists when the deceased spouse was at least 65. This expands it to cover spouses of deceased people who were only 55 but also disabled.
But per vote411.org, "The proposed amendment is needed because in 2019, the Tax Code was updated to allow this tax limitation for surviving spouses of disabled persons, but the Legislature failed to authorize a proposed constitutional amendment. Some counties followed the Tax Code and some did not. For those that did not, eligible surviving spouses may be due a refund."
Also per vote411.org, supporters say "This amendment would protect the surviving spouse of a disabled person from losing an important benefit" and "The proposition validates a state law already passed and clarifies that the law is to be enforced." Opponents say "The passage could reduce tax revenues for school districts and other local taxing authorities" and "Any lower property values could decrease revenue and affect the state school funding formulas."
I don't feel strongly about this one, but I like The Austin Chronicle's take which is "We are all for making it easier for taxing entities in Texas to account for personal hardship; we do not think that linking favorable tax treatment to moralistic virtue signaling is the way to go. Our democracy is in crisis precisely because the people who run this place want to preserve the benefits of good government for whom they deem the right kind of people; this is more of that, and it should be rejected."
So I'm voting against.
Proposition 8 - the military widow(er) property tax exemption one
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.”
[First impression: Because the government won't pay out life insurance or a pension, the least we can do as a state is to reduce the local property taxes you pay--if you have a house. This is just weird.]
This is one of those incremental attachments to old laws: there's already such an exemption for surviving spouses of those who are killed in action--this would also cover spouses of those killed during non-combat-related service such as during training or other military duties.
Per Vote411.org, supporters say it shouldn't matter how someone died because of their military service. Opponents say "Many more military are killed in the line of duty than are killed in action. The estimated potential loss of tax revenue could be significant," possibly affecting the state school funding formula or increasing the tax burden for other property owners.
I'm voting against.
no subject
on 2021-10-07 07:51 am (UTC)no subject
on 2021-10-08 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
on 2021-10-29 01:25 am (UTC)no subject
on 2021-10-29 07:43 pm (UTC)