November 2025 Election Endorsements
Oct. 20th, 2025 07:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebUgh, another election. Fellow Texans: If you do nothing else, I'd ask you to vote NO on State Proposition 12. Lines should be very short, especially during early voting. And you will be a much higher percentage of the voters even than in mid-term elections, so you have power!
I've listed everything that will be on my ballot, how I'm voting, and why I'm voting that way. And because you're different, I also listed other reasons you might vote the same way and reasons you might vote the other way. As always, if you have another perspective or more information, I would love to hear it.
Here are most of my sources (in alphabetical order):
Austin Chronicle – https://www.austinchronicle.com/topic/elections/austin-chronicle-endorsements-for-the-november-2025-election/ - An opinionated, liberal biased paper (they are a little extremist for me, but they are well informed and do explain themselves)
LWV – League of Women Voters Austin Voters Guide - https://austinvotersguide.org/LWVAA-VG-EN.pdf - They try very hard to stay unbiased and to seek pro- and con- arguments for every amendment, but they don't always discuss the big picture.
My friend – a progressive democrat who stays up on the issues year round (and does not want to be credited directly because she's tired of arguing). I don't always agree with her but she's more informed than me, I trust her perfectly, and she explains well.
Progress Texas - https://progresstexas.org/blog/2025-texas-statewide-ballot-guide – A progressive organization.
Texas Policy Research - https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/texas-2025-constitutional-amendments-explained-ballot-guide-vote-recommendations/ - They say they are a 'nonpartisan public policy organization committed to advancing liberty-based solutions'—they are certainly more conservative or libertarian than my other sources.
Texas State Propositions
Proposition 1 - Creates a permanent fund for the Texas State Technical College System
Yes – The UT System has a permanent fund; I'd like to see this kind of support for technical colleges, too.
But you might prefer to vote no if you think:
* less permanent funding would be more appropriate
* funding to existing community colleges would be more appropriate (as my well-informed friend thinks)
* there are a lot more important things that taxes should go to
* businesses should pay to train their own folk (lol! I wish!)
Proposition 2 - Bans the state from ever creating a capital gains tax on investment profits
No – I oppose wealth taxes—which I feel like includes unrealized capital gains taxes—but I oppose disallowing the taxation of realized capital gains in the Constitution. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'A solution in search of a problem. We don't tax capital gains at all in Texas, and we're exceedingly unlikely to do so.' - My friend
* It's good to tax the relatively rich.
Reasons to vote yes:
* Limited government, limited taxes
Proposition 3 - Requires the denial of bail under certain circumstances to persons accused of certain offenses punishable as a felony
No – It has the word "requiring." I'd prefer that judges have flexibility for individual cases. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'This is one of those showboat amendments Republicans love to insert into elections to look tough on crime. It would give judges more options to deny bail to people accused of murder or similar offenses. But don’t judges already have that authority?, you may ask. Yeah, they do. So why don’t we just simplify things and keep the current rules in place?' – Austin Chronicle
* This 'introduces a financial barrier only put on poorer Texans, as denying bail usually requires a trial, increasing risk of imprisonment to overcrowded jails.' – Progress Texas
* 'While aimed at improving public safety, this amendment undermines individual liberty by expanding pretrial detention without conviction and curtails judicial discretion. It creates a rigid, constitutionally enshrined mandate that risks overreach, erodes due process, and expands the scope of government authority without adequate safeguards.' – Texas Policy Research
* Denying bail more often could result in overcrowding of jails and more money required to fund jails.
Proposition 4 - Establish a Texas Water Fund to finance long-term water infrastructure projects
Yes. We have a water problem, with demand set to outpace supply, and water is up there right after air for basic important things, so even though maybe we could do better, I like this focus. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'This is a transfer of funds to the TX Water Development Board, and while it is a governor-appointed board, they are specialized in the field, and I trust them more than I trust the TX Lege to do the right things for water needs in the state.' – My friend
* Long-term funding would help address aging infrastructure and farmers’ needs, as well as our economic growth. – Progress Texas
Reasons to vote no:
* 'While addressing water infrastructure is vital, this resolution undermines limited government and fiscal transparency by embedding automatic spending into the Constitution. It crowds out private-sector solutions, reduces future tax relief opportunities, and limits legislative accountability for long-term fiscal commitments.' – Texas Policy Research
* 'Water conservation is a critical component of the strategy to meet future water needs in Texas, and is not addressed by this plan.' – via League of Women Voters
Proposition 5 - Exempts animal feed inventories held by retailers from property taxes
Yes. I oppose inventory taxes in general. And this might help a little with food prices. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'animal feed is part of the food chain, which has other parts exempted from property taxes.' – My friend
* 'Under current law, animal feed is typically exempt from taxation at each location or transaction during its life cycle, from the field where it’s harvested to the purchase of the feed by a farmer or rancher, except for when the feed is sitting in a store as inventory.' - LWV
* 'Due to the seasonal needs of the agricultural business, warehouses are fully stocked when property taxes are calculated. This results in higher taxes on sellers that are passed onto the consumers.' - LWV
Reason to vote no:
* 'Other business owners’ inventory is taxed; we’re not convinced an exception should be made here.' – Austin Chronicle
Proposition 6 - Bans new taxes on securities transactions
No. I don't think this belongs in the Constitution. And I don't think I'd mind this sort of tax if it could be made to work; it seems pretty progressive to me. It seems to me that it would mostly affect day traders, not investors like me or retirement portfolios. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'It seems safe to surmise this proposition is in response to the Texas Stock Exchange set to launch in 2026. The state wants to signal to investors in TXSE that it won’t have those pesky fees and regulations like its New York counterpart. Financial institutions, brokers, et al. don’t need our help making money.' – Austin Chronicle
* 'Solution in search of a problem again. We don't levy taxes on this, and there's no indication that we ever will, so what's the point of a ban?' – My friend
Reason to vote yes:
* 'This amendment would preemptively prohibit the Texas Legislature from imposing taxes on securities transactions or from creating new occupation taxes on registered financial market operators like brokers and exchanges. It aims to shield investors and financial institutions from future taxation in this space.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 7 - Property tax exemption for deceased veterans’ spouses
Yes. 'This proposed amendment fixes a gap with respect to veterans who, while they do not qualify as fully disabled, died due to a condition or disease related to their service. These exemptions could be transferred to a subsequent property for an equal amount, but would apply only to a surviving spouse who had not remarried since the veteran’s death.' - LWV I like fixing the gap. Part of me thinks spouses shouldn't get the same benefits as actual vets, but most of me knows that those spouses also make sacrifices. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'Applies to a small group' – My friend
Reasons to vote no:
* It doesn't discourage moving, but it does discourage re-marriage, so it's anti-family.
Proposition 8 - Bans taxes on estate and inheritance
No. I prefer maintaining flexibility. I have some issues with inheritance taxes. When the tax is on a family business the heirs intend to continue running or on a house that heirs plan to live in, I oppose taxing it in a way that means they have to sell to pay the taxes. However, if the heirs want to sell it anyway, then I am for a tax. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'Solution in search of a problem. We don't tax inheritance, and we're not likely to. There's no point in a ban.' – My friend
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'Proposition 8 reinforces private property rights, personal liberty, and limited government by ensuring Texans are free to transfer wealth without punitive taxation. It prevents future overreach, supports family financial stability, and protects generational business continuity without affecting current revenues.' – Texas Policy Research
* 'The state would still be able to impose or change real estate title and motor vehicle transfer taxes, or normal property taxes.' – LWV
Proposition 9 - Increases a tax exemption for business equipment from $2,500 to $125,000
No. I oppose wealth/inventory taxes. But 'HB 9 could encourage business owners to avoid taxes by creating new business entities or spreading inventory across appraisal districts to take advantage of multiple business personal property tax exemptions. Without methods to trace common ownership or coordinate between appraisal districts, a taxing entity would lack the mechanisms to ensure that each taxpayer only received one exemption.' - https://hro-dfr.house.texas.gov/bill-analysis?legislature=89&session=R&billNumber=HB9 I feel quite confident that all the scumbag businesses would do this. It also looks like a significant amount of money would be lost.
* Per https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/22/texas-statewide-propositions-november-ballot-election/, 'The state would help pick up the tab for the amount of property tax revenue school districts would lose. This would cost the state an estimated $193.5 million from general revenue in 2027 and more than $100 million annually from general revenue in subsequent fiscal years, according to a fiscal note from the Legislative Budget Board. Other taxing entities like cities and counties would either have to raise tax rates to make up for the lost revenue, or go without it.'
* 'Texas already ranks near the bottom in per-student funding, and the state has repeatedly failed to cover its share of education costs. Until lawmakers fix that imbalance, the state shouldn’t pursue tax breaks that exacerbate the problem.' – Austin American Statesman via https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_Proposition_9,_Authorize_$125,000_Tax_Exemption_for_Tangible_Property_Used_for_Income_Production_Amendment_(2025)
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'The exemption would ease the tax burden on small businesses and the self-employed.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 10 - A temporary exemption from property taxes for homesteads completely destroyed by fire
Yes. 'There is currently no process for tax assessors to recalculate a homeowner’s tax bill if property is destroyed by a fire after the date of appraisal. The legislation allowed under this proposition would set forth such a process.' – LWV More reasons to vote yes:
* 'Fires are getting to be more common in our drought-prone state.' – My friend
* 'It allows narrowly tailored, compassionate relief without mandating new programs or increasing government scope, consistent with limited government principles.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 11 - Increases school property tax exemptions for seniors and Texans with disabilities.
No. As a person on a semi-fixed income who is in a house I could not afford to buy today (bought almost 30 years ago), I am still in a much better place financially than if I were a renter. And the state has already shown they often can't keep their promises to make up for things like this. Disclaimers: I'll be 65 soon and do pay property taxes, but am also pro school. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'While it helps elderly or disabled homeowners, it's unstable and it would be better not to rely on the legislature to reimburse public schools.' – My friend
* 'though the Lege plans to reimburse school districts for those lost funds, that presumes a healthy economy and a budget surplus.' – Austin Chronicle
* 'While compassionate in intent, this measure shifts the tax burden onto younger and non-exempt Texans, expands state spending commitments without reform, and erodes tax equity. True relief should come through comprehensive reform—not piecemeal exemptions that weaken limited government and fiscal discipline.' – Texas Policy Research
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'The state will pay for losses, and this amendment provides extra support for an expected 2 million homeowners—who are more likely to be in fixed income households.' – Progress Texas
Proposition 12 - Overhauls how the State Commission on Judicial Conduct operates, including how judges are investigated and disciplined
Hard no. Per LWV, this increases the number of appointees by the governor from five to seven; decreases the number of appointees by the Texas Bar from two to zero; and the six appointed by judges will be appointed by the Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice rather than various judges of the Texas Court of Appeals. This puts governor-chosen members in the majority, and I feel like our current governor has shown himself to be swayed by MAGA at every turn. And the judge-appointed members would be appointed by a single judge. I prefer power to be spread out rather than concentrated. Or as The Austin Chronicle says, 'This is meant to be an independent tribunal; the last thing we want is Abbott hand-picking seven of its 13 members and eliminating Texas Bar representation.' Other reasons to vote no:
* 'The commission doesn't need to be expanded, and the expansion would be entirely appointed by the Governor, creating an imbalance in the commission in favor of the Governor and against the Texas Bar. Bad for Justice.' – My friend
* 'this could be used against progressive judges.' – Progress Texas
Proposition 13 - Increases the school homestead property tax exemption from $100,000 to $140,000
No. Exemptions help homeowners but not renters. We can't rely on the state to make up the difference.
Reasons to vote yes:
* ''If this was implemented last year, it would have helped homeowners save $490, on average. The state will pay for losses in revenue for school districts (an estimated $2.7 billion for 2026-2027).' – Progress Texas
Proposition 14 - Creates a Texas Institute for Dementia Research and Prevention with $3 billion in state funding
Yes. I am a fan of government-sponsored medical research. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'A worthy cause.' – My friend
* 'we believe this is money well spent – not just for the half a million Texans suffering from some form of dementia (a number certain to grow with the state’s expanding senior population) but for its potential to make Texas a leader in the field.' – Austin Chronicle
Reasons to vote no:
* 'Agency leaders will be appointed by politicians which could lead to distribution of money based on favoritism rather than scientific expertise.' – LWV
* 'expands the scope and permanence of government by embedding medical research funding into the Constitution. It bypasses the appropriations process, undermines limited government, and risks crowding out private innovation in healthcare without clear fiscal safeguards or performance accountability.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 15 - Codifies “parental rights” language in the Constitution
No. Per https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/22/texas-statewide-propositions-november-ballot-election/, 'The constitution would be amended to include the following: “Provides that, to enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”
Looking at that actual wording, first 'truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions' is creepy and weird. Basically all biological forms that raise kids have this history and tradition, and you don't need a law for it. Second, the wording looks as stupid as the old marriage between a man and a woman monstrosity: 'a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child' – children tend to have more than one parent. And divorce decrees, sometimes mess with this—move all responsibility to one parent or switching it back and forth—how would those be affected? And a parent also has 'the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child.' I have a problem with the word 'control.' It seems huge (oh, I am torturing them for their own good) and also naive (you can't really control other people). This just seems to be a lot of hand-waving without any actual protections. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'If approved, this amendment could disrupt public school education due to parents trying to control curriculum and rules for all children based on their own beliefs and ideas.' - LWV That sounds like the opposite of what the amendment is actually saying. I do know parents are often allowed exceptions to school requirements—you can opt your kid out of vaccinations, saying the pledge, and maybe checking out certain library books.
* 'Elevating the rights of parents to the constitutional level could prevent necessary intervention to protect children from abuse and neglect.' – LWV Yikes!
* 'This language was wielded this legislative session to push learning and conversations around gender, race, and sexuality out of Texas public school classrooms and take books with diverse perspectives off of school library shelves. The Christian push for “parental rights” shouldn’t be given a constitutional foundation.' - Austin Chronicle
* 'Parental rights are already outlined in federal case law, and voting against this language being codified would protect against attacks on LGBTQ+ families, book bans, and what’s taught in our public schools.' – Progress Texas 'The push by Christian Nationalists to use "parental rights" to harm LGBTQ+ kids and ban DEI language is wrong, and shouldn't pass.' – My friend
* Edited to add that this law mirrors an existing federal law, so is not needed unless that law goes away.
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'Parents have constitutional rights to make decisions for their children based on federal case laws. Because laws can change over time, including the rights of parents,
the Texas Constitution would permanently establish the right of parents to raise and educate their children.' – LWV Edited to add the way another friend of mine explains it: 'A lot of state programs currently point to federal laws, so "in compliance with" or "in accordance with" or whatever. It's not clear what happens when those go away.' (I don't know which, if any, state programs point to this federal law.)
* 'Proposition 15 affirms individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government by codifying parental rights and ensuring state action is narrowly constrained. It empowers families to guide their children’s upbringing without unwarranted interference from public institutions.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 16 - Specifies that only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote in Texas elections
No. I actually think that all residents should be able to vote on laws that affect them. That includes prisoners, convicts, undocumented immigrants, and even children of at least a certain age (16? 12?). So, no, I don't want this in the Constitution. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'U.S. citizenship is already required to register to vote in Texas; the very existence of this amendment is meant to legitimize conservatives’ bogus claim that there’s rampant voter fraud in Texas. This utterly unnecessary language only seeks to spell out that certain individuals are excluded from the elections that affect their own children, schools, and local community.' – Austin Chronicle
* 'This would protect against the Constitution being wielded to propagate xenophobic rhetoric and policies.' And 'This is an inflammatory response aligned with anti-immigration policies and stokes fear about non-citizen voting (an extremely rare phenomenon).' – Progress Texas
Reaons to vote yes:
* 'Proposition 16 affirms individual liberty and limited government by clearly tying voting rights to citizenship and civic responsibility. It acts as a constitutional safeguard with minimal fiscal impact, reinforcing electoral integrity and state sovereignty.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 17 - Allow the Legislature to exempt from property taxation any increase in value to land in Texas border counties that results from the addition of border security infrastructure.
No. We already have the homestead exemption limiting increases to 10% per year. There's no need to complicate things. Also, how would you even calculate how much of a valuation change was due to one particular cause? Ugh, no. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'We imagine a massive wall would have the opposite effect, but either way, we’re not about incentivizing the border wall.' – Austin Chronicle
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'It is a narrowly tailored measure meant to avoid penalizing landowners for voluntary security-related improvements.' – Texas Policy Research
City of Austin Proposition
Proposition Q – Allows an increase of the city's tax rate beyond the 3.5% allowed without an election to $0.574017 per $100 valuation
Warnings: This looks a lot like a bond proposal, but it's a forever increase. Also, there's a list of things they want to do with this money (see page 10 of https://austinvotersguide.org/LWVAA-VG-EN.pdf), but there's nothing tying them to these.
Yes. I don't love everything the city does with our taxes, but I do like most of the things on that list. Also my City Council member who I trust (Chito Vela) supports it, my previous City Council member who I trust wholeheartedly to support the little guy (Gregorio Cazar) supports it, and Save Austin Now (who has funded some seriously awful stuff in the past) opposes it (see https://communityimpact.com/austin/north-central-austin/election/2025/10/08/nonprofits-labor-groups-and-council-members-top-donors-in-support-of-austins-proposition-q/), so that cements my vote. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'I'm willing to pay for parks, low-income housing, and maintenance. Increasing taxes to do so is just how government works, and the benefits outweigh the cost, here.' – My friend
* A video (https://www.facebook.com/FoundationCommunities/videos/kelas-love-austin-mp4/1501012780915346/) showed 'Proposition Q on the November ballot in Austin will help the city maintain its commitment to services for people struggling with the cost of housing.'
Reasons to vote no:
* It's a forever tax.
* It's expected to raise taxes by about $300/year for the average homeowner. Edited to add that if this fails, taxes are still expected to go up $100/year on average.
* It would also make renting more expensive.
I've listed everything that will be on my ballot, how I'm voting, and why I'm voting that way. And because you're different, I also listed other reasons you might vote the same way and reasons you might vote the other way. As always, if you have another perspective or more information, I would love to hear it.
Here are most of my sources (in alphabetical order):
Austin Chronicle – https://www.austinchronicle.com/topic/elections/austin-chronicle-endorsements-for-the-november-2025-election/ - An opinionated, liberal biased paper (they are a little extremist for me, but they are well informed and do explain themselves)
LWV – League of Women Voters Austin Voters Guide - https://austinvotersguide.org/LWVAA-VG-EN.pdf - They try very hard to stay unbiased and to seek pro- and con- arguments for every amendment, but they don't always discuss the big picture.
My friend – a progressive democrat who stays up on the issues year round (and does not want to be credited directly because she's tired of arguing). I don't always agree with her but she's more informed than me, I trust her perfectly, and she explains well.
Progress Texas - https://progresstexas.org/blog/2025-texas-statewide-ballot-guide – A progressive organization.
Texas Policy Research - https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/texas-2025-constitutional-amendments-explained-ballot-guide-vote-recommendations/ - They say they are a 'nonpartisan public policy organization committed to advancing liberty-based solutions'—they are certainly more conservative or libertarian than my other sources.
Texas State Propositions
Proposition 1 - Creates a permanent fund for the Texas State Technical College System
Yes – The UT System has a permanent fund; I'd like to see this kind of support for technical colleges, too.
But you might prefer to vote no if you think:
* less permanent funding would be more appropriate
* funding to existing community colleges would be more appropriate (as my well-informed friend thinks)
* there are a lot more important things that taxes should go to
* businesses should pay to train their own folk (lol! I wish!)
Proposition 2 - Bans the state from ever creating a capital gains tax on investment profits
No – I oppose wealth taxes—which I feel like includes unrealized capital gains taxes—but I oppose disallowing the taxation of realized capital gains in the Constitution. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'A solution in search of a problem. We don't tax capital gains at all in Texas, and we're exceedingly unlikely to do so.' - My friend
* It's good to tax the relatively rich.
Reasons to vote yes:
* Limited government, limited taxes
Proposition 3 - Requires the denial of bail under certain circumstances to persons accused of certain offenses punishable as a felony
No – It has the word "requiring." I'd prefer that judges have flexibility for individual cases. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'This is one of those showboat amendments Republicans love to insert into elections to look tough on crime. It would give judges more options to deny bail to people accused of murder or similar offenses. But don’t judges already have that authority?, you may ask. Yeah, they do. So why don’t we just simplify things and keep the current rules in place?' – Austin Chronicle
* This 'introduces a financial barrier only put on poorer Texans, as denying bail usually requires a trial, increasing risk of imprisonment to overcrowded jails.' – Progress Texas
* 'While aimed at improving public safety, this amendment undermines individual liberty by expanding pretrial detention without conviction and curtails judicial discretion. It creates a rigid, constitutionally enshrined mandate that risks overreach, erodes due process, and expands the scope of government authority without adequate safeguards.' – Texas Policy Research
* Denying bail more often could result in overcrowding of jails and more money required to fund jails.
Proposition 4 - Establish a Texas Water Fund to finance long-term water infrastructure projects
Yes. We have a water problem, with demand set to outpace supply, and water is up there right after air for basic important things, so even though maybe we could do better, I like this focus. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'This is a transfer of funds to the TX Water Development Board, and while it is a governor-appointed board, they are specialized in the field, and I trust them more than I trust the TX Lege to do the right things for water needs in the state.' – My friend
* Long-term funding would help address aging infrastructure and farmers’ needs, as well as our economic growth. – Progress Texas
Reasons to vote no:
* 'While addressing water infrastructure is vital, this resolution undermines limited government and fiscal transparency by embedding automatic spending into the Constitution. It crowds out private-sector solutions, reduces future tax relief opportunities, and limits legislative accountability for long-term fiscal commitments.' – Texas Policy Research
* 'Water conservation is a critical component of the strategy to meet future water needs in Texas, and is not addressed by this plan.' – via League of Women Voters
Proposition 5 - Exempts animal feed inventories held by retailers from property taxes
Yes. I oppose inventory taxes in general. And this might help a little with food prices. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'animal feed is part of the food chain, which has other parts exempted from property taxes.' – My friend
* 'Under current law, animal feed is typically exempt from taxation at each location or transaction during its life cycle, from the field where it’s harvested to the purchase of the feed by a farmer or rancher, except for when the feed is sitting in a store as inventory.' - LWV
* 'Due to the seasonal needs of the agricultural business, warehouses are fully stocked when property taxes are calculated. This results in higher taxes on sellers that are passed onto the consumers.' - LWV
Reason to vote no:
* 'Other business owners’ inventory is taxed; we’re not convinced an exception should be made here.' – Austin Chronicle
Proposition 6 - Bans new taxes on securities transactions
No. I don't think this belongs in the Constitution. And I don't think I'd mind this sort of tax if it could be made to work; it seems pretty progressive to me. It seems to me that it would mostly affect day traders, not investors like me or retirement portfolios. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'It seems safe to surmise this proposition is in response to the Texas Stock Exchange set to launch in 2026. The state wants to signal to investors in TXSE that it won’t have those pesky fees and regulations like its New York counterpart. Financial institutions, brokers, et al. don’t need our help making money.' – Austin Chronicle
* 'Solution in search of a problem again. We don't levy taxes on this, and there's no indication that we ever will, so what's the point of a ban?' – My friend
Reason to vote yes:
* 'This amendment would preemptively prohibit the Texas Legislature from imposing taxes on securities transactions or from creating new occupation taxes on registered financial market operators like brokers and exchanges. It aims to shield investors and financial institutions from future taxation in this space.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 7 - Property tax exemption for deceased veterans’ spouses
Yes. 'This proposed amendment fixes a gap with respect to veterans who, while they do not qualify as fully disabled, died due to a condition or disease related to their service. These exemptions could be transferred to a subsequent property for an equal amount, but would apply only to a surviving spouse who had not remarried since the veteran’s death.' - LWV I like fixing the gap. Part of me thinks spouses shouldn't get the same benefits as actual vets, but most of me knows that those spouses also make sacrifices. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'Applies to a small group' – My friend
Reasons to vote no:
* It doesn't discourage moving, but it does discourage re-marriage, so it's anti-family.
Proposition 8 - Bans taxes on estate and inheritance
No. I prefer maintaining flexibility. I have some issues with inheritance taxes. When the tax is on a family business the heirs intend to continue running or on a house that heirs plan to live in, I oppose taxing it in a way that means they have to sell to pay the taxes. However, if the heirs want to sell it anyway, then I am for a tax. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'Solution in search of a problem. We don't tax inheritance, and we're not likely to. There's no point in a ban.' – My friend
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'Proposition 8 reinforces private property rights, personal liberty, and limited government by ensuring Texans are free to transfer wealth without punitive taxation. It prevents future overreach, supports family financial stability, and protects generational business continuity without affecting current revenues.' – Texas Policy Research
* 'The state would still be able to impose or change real estate title and motor vehicle transfer taxes, or normal property taxes.' – LWV
Proposition 9 - Increases a tax exemption for business equipment from $2,500 to $125,000
No. I oppose wealth/inventory taxes. But 'HB 9 could encourage business owners to avoid taxes by creating new business entities or spreading inventory across appraisal districts to take advantage of multiple business personal property tax exemptions. Without methods to trace common ownership or coordinate between appraisal districts, a taxing entity would lack the mechanisms to ensure that each taxpayer only received one exemption.' - https://hro-dfr.house.texas.gov/bill-analysis?legislature=89&session=R&billNumber=HB9 I feel quite confident that all the scumbag businesses would do this. It also looks like a significant amount of money would be lost.
* Per https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/22/texas-statewide-propositions-november-ballot-election/, 'The state would help pick up the tab for the amount of property tax revenue school districts would lose. This would cost the state an estimated $193.5 million from general revenue in 2027 and more than $100 million annually from general revenue in subsequent fiscal years, according to a fiscal note from the Legislative Budget Board. Other taxing entities like cities and counties would either have to raise tax rates to make up for the lost revenue, or go without it.'
* 'Texas already ranks near the bottom in per-student funding, and the state has repeatedly failed to cover its share of education costs. Until lawmakers fix that imbalance, the state shouldn’t pursue tax breaks that exacerbate the problem.' – Austin American Statesman via https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_Proposition_9,_Authorize_$125,000_Tax_Exemption_for_Tangible_Property_Used_for_Income_Production_Amendment_(2025)
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'The exemption would ease the tax burden on small businesses and the self-employed.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 10 - A temporary exemption from property taxes for homesteads completely destroyed by fire
Yes. 'There is currently no process for tax assessors to recalculate a homeowner’s tax bill if property is destroyed by a fire after the date of appraisal. The legislation allowed under this proposition would set forth such a process.' – LWV More reasons to vote yes:
* 'Fires are getting to be more common in our drought-prone state.' – My friend
* 'It allows narrowly tailored, compassionate relief without mandating new programs or increasing government scope, consistent with limited government principles.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 11 - Increases school property tax exemptions for seniors and Texans with disabilities.
No. As a person on a semi-fixed income who is in a house I could not afford to buy today (bought almost 30 years ago), I am still in a much better place financially than if I were a renter. And the state has already shown they often can't keep their promises to make up for things like this. Disclaimers: I'll be 65 soon and do pay property taxes, but am also pro school. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'While it helps elderly or disabled homeowners, it's unstable and it would be better not to rely on the legislature to reimburse public schools.' – My friend
* 'though the Lege plans to reimburse school districts for those lost funds, that presumes a healthy economy and a budget surplus.' – Austin Chronicle
* 'While compassionate in intent, this measure shifts the tax burden onto younger and non-exempt Texans, expands state spending commitments without reform, and erodes tax equity. True relief should come through comprehensive reform—not piecemeal exemptions that weaken limited government and fiscal discipline.' – Texas Policy Research
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'The state will pay for losses, and this amendment provides extra support for an expected 2 million homeowners—who are more likely to be in fixed income households.' – Progress Texas
Proposition 12 - Overhauls how the State Commission on Judicial Conduct operates, including how judges are investigated and disciplined
Hard no. Per LWV, this increases the number of appointees by the governor from five to seven; decreases the number of appointees by the Texas Bar from two to zero; and the six appointed by judges will be appointed by the Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice rather than various judges of the Texas Court of Appeals. This puts governor-chosen members in the majority, and I feel like our current governor has shown himself to be swayed by MAGA at every turn. And the judge-appointed members would be appointed by a single judge. I prefer power to be spread out rather than concentrated. Or as The Austin Chronicle says, 'This is meant to be an independent tribunal; the last thing we want is Abbott hand-picking seven of its 13 members and eliminating Texas Bar representation.' Other reasons to vote no:
* 'The commission doesn't need to be expanded, and the expansion would be entirely appointed by the Governor, creating an imbalance in the commission in favor of the Governor and against the Texas Bar. Bad for Justice.' – My friend
* 'this could be used against progressive judges.' – Progress Texas
Proposition 13 - Increases the school homestead property tax exemption from $100,000 to $140,000
No. Exemptions help homeowners but not renters. We can't rely on the state to make up the difference.
Reasons to vote yes:
* ''If this was implemented last year, it would have helped homeowners save $490, on average. The state will pay for losses in revenue for school districts (an estimated $2.7 billion for 2026-2027).' – Progress Texas
Proposition 14 - Creates a Texas Institute for Dementia Research and Prevention with $3 billion in state funding
Yes. I am a fan of government-sponsored medical research. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'A worthy cause.' – My friend
* 'we believe this is money well spent – not just for the half a million Texans suffering from some form of dementia (a number certain to grow with the state’s expanding senior population) but for its potential to make Texas a leader in the field.' – Austin Chronicle
Reasons to vote no:
* 'Agency leaders will be appointed by politicians which could lead to distribution of money based on favoritism rather than scientific expertise.' – LWV
* 'expands the scope and permanence of government by embedding medical research funding into the Constitution. It bypasses the appropriations process, undermines limited government, and risks crowding out private innovation in healthcare without clear fiscal safeguards or performance accountability.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 15 - Codifies “parental rights” language in the Constitution
No. Per https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/22/texas-statewide-propositions-november-ballot-election/, 'The constitution would be amended to include the following: “Provides that, to enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”
Looking at that actual wording, first 'truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions' is creepy and weird. Basically all biological forms that raise kids have this history and tradition, and you don't need a law for it. Second, the wording looks as stupid as the old marriage between a man and a woman monstrosity: 'a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child' – children tend to have more than one parent. And divorce decrees, sometimes mess with this—move all responsibility to one parent or switching it back and forth—how would those be affected? And a parent also has 'the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child.' I have a problem with the word 'control.' It seems huge (oh, I am torturing them for their own good) and also naive (you can't really control other people). This just seems to be a lot of hand-waving without any actual protections. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'If approved, this amendment could disrupt public school education due to parents trying to control curriculum and rules for all children based on their own beliefs and ideas.' - LWV That sounds like the opposite of what the amendment is actually saying. I do know parents are often allowed exceptions to school requirements—you can opt your kid out of vaccinations, saying the pledge, and maybe checking out certain library books.
* 'Elevating the rights of parents to the constitutional level could prevent necessary intervention to protect children from abuse and neglect.' – LWV Yikes!
* 'This language was wielded this legislative session to push learning and conversations around gender, race, and sexuality out of Texas public school classrooms and take books with diverse perspectives off of school library shelves. The Christian push for “parental rights” shouldn’t be given a constitutional foundation.' - Austin Chronicle
* 'Parental rights are already outlined in federal case law, and voting against this language being codified would protect against attacks on LGBTQ+ families, book bans, and what’s taught in our public schools.' – Progress Texas 'The push by Christian Nationalists to use "parental rights" to harm LGBTQ+ kids and ban DEI language is wrong, and shouldn't pass.' – My friend
* Edited to add that this law mirrors an existing federal law, so is not needed unless that law goes away.
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'Parents have constitutional rights to make decisions for their children based on federal case laws. Because laws can change over time, including the rights of parents,
the Texas Constitution would permanently establish the right of parents to raise and educate their children.' – LWV Edited to add the way another friend of mine explains it: 'A lot of state programs currently point to federal laws, so "in compliance with" or "in accordance with" or whatever. It's not clear what happens when those go away.' (I don't know which, if any, state programs point to this federal law.)
* 'Proposition 15 affirms individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government by codifying parental rights and ensuring state action is narrowly constrained. It empowers families to guide their children’s upbringing without unwarranted interference from public institutions.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 16 - Specifies that only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote in Texas elections
No. I actually think that all residents should be able to vote on laws that affect them. That includes prisoners, convicts, undocumented immigrants, and even children of at least a certain age (16? 12?). So, no, I don't want this in the Constitution. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'U.S. citizenship is already required to register to vote in Texas; the very existence of this amendment is meant to legitimize conservatives’ bogus claim that there’s rampant voter fraud in Texas. This utterly unnecessary language only seeks to spell out that certain individuals are excluded from the elections that affect their own children, schools, and local community.' – Austin Chronicle
* 'This would protect against the Constitution being wielded to propagate xenophobic rhetoric and policies.' And 'This is an inflammatory response aligned with anti-immigration policies and stokes fear about non-citizen voting (an extremely rare phenomenon).' – Progress Texas
Reaons to vote yes:
* 'Proposition 16 affirms individual liberty and limited government by clearly tying voting rights to citizenship and civic responsibility. It acts as a constitutional safeguard with minimal fiscal impact, reinforcing electoral integrity and state sovereignty.' – Texas Policy Research
Proposition 17 - Allow the Legislature to exempt from property taxation any increase in value to land in Texas border counties that results from the addition of border security infrastructure.
No. We already have the homestead exemption limiting increases to 10% per year. There's no need to complicate things. Also, how would you even calculate how much of a valuation change was due to one particular cause? Ugh, no. Other reasons to vote no:
* 'We imagine a massive wall would have the opposite effect, but either way, we’re not about incentivizing the border wall.' – Austin Chronicle
Reasons to vote yes:
* 'It is a narrowly tailored measure meant to avoid penalizing landowners for voluntary security-related improvements.' – Texas Policy Research
City of Austin Proposition
Proposition Q – Allows an increase of the city's tax rate beyond the 3.5% allowed without an election to $0.574017 per $100 valuation
Warnings: This looks a lot like a bond proposal, but it's a forever increase. Also, there's a list of things they want to do with this money (see page 10 of https://austinvotersguide.org/LWVAA-VG-EN.pdf), but there's nothing tying them to these.
Yes. I don't love everything the city does with our taxes, but I do like most of the things on that list. Also my City Council member who I trust (Chito Vela) supports it, my previous City Council member who I trust wholeheartedly to support the little guy (Gregorio Cazar) supports it, and Save Austin Now (who has funded some seriously awful stuff in the past) opposes it (see https://communityimpact.com/austin/north-central-austin/election/2025/10/08/nonprofits-labor-groups-and-council-members-top-donors-in-support-of-austins-proposition-q/), so that cements my vote. Other reasons to vote yes:
* 'I'm willing to pay for parks, low-income housing, and maintenance. Increasing taxes to do so is just how government works, and the benefits outweigh the cost, here.' – My friend
* A video (https://www.facebook.com/FoundationCommunities/videos/kelas-love-austin-mp4/1501012780915346/) showed 'Proposition Q on the November ballot in Austin will help the city maintain its commitment to services for people struggling with the cost of housing.'
Reasons to vote no:
* It's a forever tax.
* It's expected to raise taxes by about $300/year for the average homeowner. Edited to add that if this fails, taxes are still expected to go up $100/year on average.
* It would also make renting more expensive.
no subject
on 2025-10-21 10:58 am (UTC)no subject
on 2025-10-21 11:17 pm (UTC)Thank you!!!
on 2025-10-26 07:46 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you!!!
on 2025-10-28 01:57 am (UTC)I wish I could see who proposed each Amendment and why.