Although it’s an odd number year, and most state and national elections occur in even number years, Texas will have a general election this November 2023. It’s not for a candidate(s), it’s for the State Constitution. 49 of the 50 states require the legislatures to bring changes to the state constitutions by an election of the people. In Texas, the State Constitution can not be changed or ratified without the public voice. After the Texas 88th Legislative regular session and two special sessions, the state has announced its propositions to the state and Secretary of State. If a proposition has a majority of yes, it becomes an amendment to the State Constitution.
On Friday, August 4, 2023, the Texas Deputy Secretary of State Joe Esparza drew the ballot order for the 14 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. Texans will vote on these amendments as a part of the November 7, 2023 Election. Below is the ballot order as drawn.
Proposition 1 – HJR 126 “The constitutional amendment protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management.”
Proposition 2 – SJR 64 “The constitutional amendment authorizing a local option exemption from ad valorem taxation by a county or municipality of all or part of the appraised value of real property used to operate a child-care facility.”
Proposition 3 – HJR 132 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual wealth or net worth tax, including a tax on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or family.”
Proposition 4 – HJR 2 from the second special session “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to establish a temporary limit on the maximum appraised value of real property other than a residence homestead for ad valorem tax purposes; to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district applicable to residence homesteads from $40,000 to $100,000; to adjust the amount of the limitation on school district ad valorem taxes imposed on the residence homesteads of the elderly or disabled to reflect increases in certain exemption amounts; to except certain appropriations to pay for ad valorem tax relief from the constitutional limitation on the rate of growth of appropriations; and to authorize the legislature to provide for a four-year term of office for a member of the board of directors of certain appraisal districts.”
Proposition 5 – HJR 3 “The constitutional amendment relating to the Texas University Fund, which provides funding to certain institutions of higher education to achieve national prominence as major research universities and drive the state economy.”
Proposition 6 – SJR 75 “The constitutional amendment creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state.”
Proposition 7 – SJR 93 “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities.”
Proposition 8 – HJR 125 “The constitutional amendment creating the broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband access and assist in the financing of connectivity projects.”
Proposition 9 – HJR 2, regular session “The constitutional amendment authorizing the 88th Legislature to provide a cost-of-living adjustment to certain annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.”
Proposition 10 – SJR 87 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation equipment or inventory held by a manufacturer of medical or biomedical products to protect the Texas healthcare network and strengthen our medical supply chain.”
Proposition 11 – SJR 32 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities.”
Proposition 12 – HJR 134 “The constitutional amendment providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County.”
Proposition 13 – HJR 107 “The constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges.”
Proposition 14 – SJR 74 “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the centennial parks conservation fund to be used for the creation and improvement of state parks.”
For the next few weeks, TownTalk will break down each proposition of the background, who voted for the proposition to go to the ballot, and other important information relating to each proposition.
Breaking Down Proposition 1
Proposition 1 would add a new portion to Article I of the state constitution if voted yes it will establish a right to farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management on owned or leased personal property. The amendment states that the right does not preclude the state legislature from passing laws to regulate farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, or wildlife management practices to protect public health and safety, prevent danger to animals or crop production, or preserve the natural resources of the state. The amendment also states that it does not prevent the state legislature from acquiring property for public use including the development of natural resources.
Background to Proposition 1
In 1981, the Texas State Legislature passed the Protection and Preservation of Agricultural Operations Statute (PPAO) which limits the circumstances under which an agricultural operation may be considered a nuisance. Agricultural operations include soil cultivation, farming, animal feed, planting seeds, floriculture, viticulture, horticulture, silviculture, wildlife management, raising livestock, and grain storage facilities.
If voted yes to place Proposition 1 into the constitution, it will strengthen the PPAO in providing a defense for ranches, farms or any agricultural operations dealing with disturbing and frivolous lawsuits, and prohibiting a municipality or political subdivisions from from trying to impose certain regulations or requirements on agricultural services.
According to Ballotpedia, Missouri, and North Dakota—have adopted right-to-farm constitutional amendments. North Dakotans adopted a citizen-initiated amendment in 2012 by a vote of 66.89% to 33.11%. The measure, sponsored by the North Dakota Farm Bureau, called for a constitutional amendment that would block any law “which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.”[8]
Voters in Missouri adopted the legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Aug. 2014 by a vote of 50.12% to 49.88%. The measure explicitly guarantees farmers and ranchers the right to engage in farming and ranching practices. The right to farm was protected from nuisance suits by Section 537.295 of the Missouri Revised Statutes at the time of the election.[9]
In 2016, Oklahomans defeated a similar amendment placed on the ballot by the legislature by a vote of 60.29% to 39.71%. State Question 777 was designed to require the courts to apply strict scrutiny—the same standard used in cases concerning free speech, gun ownership, and religious freedom—to lawsuits concerning agriculture and livestock
According to Texas Farm Bureau President Russell Boening, “Prop 1 isn’t about protecting the past. It’s about ensuring Texans’ access to safe and affordable food in the future. … The amendment protects all farmers and ranchers—large and small. Only responsible, normal day-to-day agricultural practices are protected, not practices employed by bad actors”
In a joint and bi-partisan statement from Reps. DeWayne Burns (R-58), Dustin Burrows (R-83, Terry County Representative ), Mary Gonzalez (D-75), Trent Ashby (R-9), and Diego Bernal (D-123) said, “Farmers and ranchers who engage in production agriculture within municipal boundaries are being subjected to broad overregulation by municipal ordinances that prohibit and greatly restrict normal practices of agricultural operations, such as the raising and keeping of livestock, the production of hay, and the cultivation of certain row crops. H.J.R. 126 seeks to address this issue and empower landowners in the state by constitutionally protecting their right to engage in certain generally accepted agricultural practices on their own property.”
There were no “NO” votes to not send this proposition to the voters. All 31 State Senators (19 Republicans 12 Democrats) and 144 or 96% of the lower chamber voted yes.
Disclaimer: TownTalk does not support or endorse a “YES” or a “NO” to these propositions. The information in this article is for information only.
