By Gloria Bigger-Cantu

Kleberg County voters will decide whether the sale of all alcoholic beverages including mixed beverages will be legal in the Justice of the Peace Precinct 1 election set for Nov. 3. The local option liquor special election also coincides with the Texas constitutional amendments election.

The local option liquor election materialized after The Kleberg County Citizens for Economic Growth, a special purpose political action committee, gathered enough signatures to be placed on the ballot in July. State law required the group to gather approximately 600 signatures of Justice Precinct 1 voters for an election to be held. The group gathered over 600 signatures and met the July 24 deadline.

People involved in the Kleberg County Citizens for Economic Growth included local residents, business and community leaders and some local businesses. The three other Justice of the Peace Precincts approved alcohol sales in past elections. Early voting began Oct. 19 and ended Oct. 30 with 298 people casting their ballots. Of the 298 only 125 were eligible to vote for the local option liquor election.

The local option liquor election will include the original boundaries of Justice of the Peace Precinct 1 before changes occurred in 1981. The old area includes four of five JP Precinct 1 voting precinct and one and a half voting precincts of Pct. 4.

In addition to the state constitutional amendments the voters eligible to vote in the special elections will include voting Precincts 11, 12, 13, 14, 41, and 43.

Voting locations are the Wild Horse Mall, Kleberg County Precinct 1 building; the Coastal Bend Fellowship Church, the Boys and Girls Club Building, the Kleberg County Maintenance Annex 2 building;

All other Kleberg County eligible voters will vote only for the Texas constitutional amendment elections at Texas A&M University-Kingsville Industry and Tech building; the Knights of Columbus Hall building on Gen. Cavazos Blvd.; the Ricardo Community Senior Center; and the Riviera County Building.

Voters also need to be aware that state propositions include issues that affect the taxpayers. These issues include property taxes, public beaches, veterans, private property and county land. The voting decisions will, in the long run, impact the taxpayers’ pocketbook. Proposition 1 and Proposition 4 concern two local entities that are the Naval Air Station and Texas A&M University Kingsville.

The state amendment language, often complex and technical for people to understand, often times makes it difficult to make a voting decision. The League of Women Voters of Texas, a non-partisan organization has provided this voter’s guide for the 2009 Constitutional Amendment Election.

PROPOSITION 1-“The constititutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.

FOR: Bases provide economic benefits to the state and the counties and cities where they are located. This proposed amendment would protect military installations from encroaching development that would restrict training and operational missions, which in turn could cause military installations to close. The construction of highways, utilities, or other infrastructure would also protect or promote the military installations. The passage of this amendment would allow landowners to be compensated for their property.

AGAINST: Cities and counties should not take on additional debt at this time.

Passing this amendment could lead to higher property taxes for owners who are already feeling burdened by a distressed economy.

PROPOSITION 2-“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”

FOR: Texas already protects agricultural and timberland from large appraisal increases due to highest and best use. Now the state needs to protect residential property in the same way.

• A residence homestead should be appraised on its present use, not on any possible future use.

• Just because there is development in the area does not necessarily mean the property owner gets an advantage from it.

AGAINST: The “highest and best use” of a property has an impact on the sales price, which shows the real value.

• This amendment could reduce taxable property values and thus local tax revenues.

• The state might have to provide additional equalization funding to a school district if property values are lowered, a measure the state cannot afford.

PROPOSITION 3-“The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.

FOR: Passing this amendment would allow direct state enforcement authority and oversight over local appraisal processes throughout the state. The state could take action to address inconsistencies in appraisal methods among countries.

With this amendment in place, the owners of property in different counties would be reassured that their properties were being evaluated in a similar manner and that state funding for public schools, which is based on the taxable property value in each school district, would be more equitably assessed.

AGAINST: This amendment is unnecessary because the state trains appraisers through the State Comptroller’s Office and also produces an annual property tax study, which enables comparison of local property appraisals with the state appraisal of property.

The proposition would result in giving up local control to the state, which might not understand local conditions.

PROPOSITION 4-“The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in the state to achieve national prominence as a major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.”

FOR: The presence of more tier-one universities would expand the educational opportunities available to Texas students and keep more of them in the state. Currently, Texas loses more than 10,000 high school graduates a year to doctorate granting universities in other states.

•Tier-one universities are the best way to develop a highly skilled workforce, especially in the sciences, engineering, and professional fields that are critical to economic success.

• With a population 24 million and only one two public tier-universities, Texas is at a disadvantage in attracting and retaining top talent and drawing research and venture capital investment to the state.

AGAINST: In this time of limited state dollars, Texas should focus the use of the National Research University Fund only on those institutions that are closest to attaining tier one status.

• If there is an urgency to develop more nationally competitive research universities, it would make more sense to target fewer than seven institutions.

• The amendment does not include a Sunset provision so that progress could be assessed periodically to determine if this plan is achieving he goal of creating more tier-one research universities.

(In order to enable these emerging research universities in Texas to achieve national prominence, this amendment would establish a new National Research University Fund. The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University would not be eligible to receive money from this fund).

PROPOSITION 5: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.”

FOR: Many rural counties have a difficult time finding enough qualified and willing candidates to sit on their appraisal review boards.

If appraisal districts can pool their talent for their appraisal reviews, it will help ensure a more professional equitable and timely appraisal review process.

AGAINST: Appointed appraisal reviewers from another county may not be familiar enough with the property they must judge in order to resolve disputes.

This amendment does not go far enough in allowing appraisal districts to combine their efforts. Many rural counties have a difficult time staffing all aspects of their appraisal districts and should be allowed to consolidate even more functions.

PROPOSITION 6: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veteran’s Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal or less than amounts previously authorized.”

FOR: If this amendment passes, it will increase the amount of funding to the Veteran’s Land Board to assist Texas veterans with home and land mortgages.

• The VLB needs a way to ensure the uninterrupted continuation of its home and land mortgage assistance programs without having to return to the Legislature every four years.

• VLB land and mortgage general obligation bonds are expected to be paid from revenue sources outside the state treasury. Thus, this proposed amendment would not have a significant fiscal impact to the state or local governments.

AGAINST: It is unwise to add a constitutional amendment about general obligations bonds that extends into the future for an unlimited time without any further oversight by the Legislature.

• If this amendment passes, elected officials can no longer be held accountable for VLB land and mortgage general obligation bonds.

• Helping Texas veterans is important, but state assistance needs to be reviewed and adjusted as needed on a regular basis to reflect the actual numbers of veterans in the state and the economic realities of the state in each time period.

PROPOSITION 7-“The constitutional amendment to allow an officer enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.”

FOR: This amendment would correct an oversight in the Texas Constitution. Currently, state employees may also hold office in most branches of the military, including the National Guard and other Texas military forces should have the same opposition.

Many civil officials would like to become active in the Texas State Guard in order to directly serve Texas in time of disaster. Passing Proposition 7 will make that service possible without these officials giving up their civil duties.

AGAINST: State employees have a duty to do the job for which they were hired, even in times of disaster. Thus, it is not reasonable that they should have two jobs vying for their service at the same time.

Framers of the Texas Constitution specifically prohibited dual office holding by state employees, and we should not continue to add exceptions to this rule.

PROPOSITION 8-“The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans’ hospitals in this state.”

FOR: Texas needs more veterans’ hospitals and other health care facilities to accommodate its large population of veterans.

The rising cost of travel can sometimes delay care for veterans who must go to one of the nine available hospitals. For instance, a veteran who lives in the Rio Grande Valley area has to travel approximately 300 miles to the nearest veteran’s hospital in San Antonio. Passing Proposition 8 means Texas veterans will have better access to medical care.

AGAINST: Partnering with the federal government may lead to unintended consequences of red tape and interference.

A constitutional amendment is unnecessary to accomplish the goal of working with the federal government and local governments to provide better health care for veterans.

PROPOSITION 9: “The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.”

FOR: “This proposed amendment would strengthen the 1959 Open Beaches Act by making the law part of the Texas Constitution. For 50 years, Texas beaches have been protected public property, allowing people from all walks of life to access to beaches. Developers would not be able to build properties along the beach and restrict the public’s access to the beach.”

• This proposition would protect the public’s right to beach access in the wake of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and coastal erosion that move the line of vegetation so that private structures may rest on Texas beaches. Several lawsuits regarding the status of houses that are now on public beaches. Several lawsuits regarding the status of houses are now on public beaches ongoing. The amendment would reduce such litigation. It would not prevent the Legislature from addressing issues related to natural events in the future but would clearly state the intent of Texas law to keep the beaches public.

• Property owners who have homes on Texas beaches already know that they face the risk of having their property shift into the public easement. Ernest money contracts, deeds, and title policies all state this risk. Houses on the beach have always been at risk as natural events cause the line between public and private land to move back and forth constantly.

AGAINST: Property 9 unfairly allows the state to require property owners whose houses are on public land because of storms and erosion to remove their buildings from public land without compensation.

• Many homes along the Texas Gulf Coast had existed for a number of years before Hurricane Ike’s winds and storm surge changed the vegetation line and left them on the public beach. These property owners should not be denied the right to continue to live in their homes or rebuild their homes.

• The Open Beach Act already gives the state too much authority to restrict the right of private landowners to enjoy their property. Having this proposition in the Constitution would compound the problem by making it much more difficult to change the law in the future.

PROPOSITION 10: “The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”

FOR: Longer terms of service would promote stability and continuity on emergency services districts’ boards.

• There is already a legislative precedent for four terms for hospital districts, whose duties sometimes relate to and overlap emergency services districts.

• Longer terms would help avoid the politicization of essentially non-partisan positions by eliminating an election every two years.

AGAINST: Longer terms of service of governing boards of emergency services districts diminish public oversight of the districts.

• Because these district boards have the power to levy taxes, they should be accountable to voters every two years, just as the members of the Texas House of Representatives are.

• The current system has adequate protection against improper political interference since the elections are non-partisan.

PROPOSITION 11-“The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of domain to an entity.

FOR: Passing Proposition 11 would strengthen the ban on taking property for economic development by making this ban a part of the Texas Constitution. The language would require a condemning authority to keep the property in its possession, occupy it, and use it for some productive purpose.

• This proposition would further protect the rights of private property owners requiring separate action on each individual property in blighted areas.

• Passage of this proposition would also limit expansion of eminent domain by requiring a two-thirds vote of the Texas Legislature to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.

AGAINST: Proposition 11 is unnecessary because Texas statue already prohibits taking private property by eminent domain for economic development.

• The “ownership, use and enjoyment” language may prohibit certain legitimate uses of eminent domain. The language should be amended to read “ownership, use or enjoyment.” This language requires that any taking, damaging, or destroying of private property must meet all three criteria (ownership, use, and enjoyment).

• Crucial needs for eminent domain supported by the majority of Texas legislators may be thwarted if this amendment is added to the Constitution.

These 11 amendments were approved consideration by the 81st Legislature and require a majority vote to be amended to the constitution. The Texas State Constitution has been amended more than 400 times since it was enacted in 1876.