(upbeat music) - Hello, my name is Linda Vaughn.

I'm the Director of Forums for the Amarillo League of Women Voters.

It is my pleasure to welcome you to our forum discussing the eight constitutional amendments, which will appear on the ballot November 2nd.

We are pleased to have with us Representative Four Price, and State Senator Kel Seliger, who will give us a brief but detailed explanation of the amendments so that we can better understand what each of them means.

This pre-recorded forum is co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Amarillo, and our friends at Panhandle PBS.

The League of Women Voters is a non-partisan political organization with over 700 local leagues throughout the United States.

We do not endorse or oppose candidates or parties.

Instead, we encourage informed and active participation in government at all levels, and we seek to register voters, educate them about their choices, and motivate them to vote.

The League of Women Voters is 101 years old.

The Amarillo League is 71 years old.

So, on behalf of our president, Sonya Letson, and all of our members, we are so pleased to be able to present this program to you.

One of the ways that the League serves to educate voters is through our voter's guide.

Some 5,000 voter guides have been distributed free of charge throughout Amarillo and Canyon, at libraries, stores, banks, and other locations.

We appreciate our generous donors who made those possible.

In addition to printed guides, the League has an online voter's guide with even more information than the printed version.

This online guide can be found at VOTE411.org.

That is VOTE411.org.

This interactive guide uses your address to produce a customized ballot for you, which you can print and you can take it into the voting booth.

You also can take the printed guide in with you to vote.

Early voting begins October 18th and will run through October 29th.

If you would like to vote by mail, you should call your election administrator right away, because the deadline for your application to be received by your administrator is October 22nd.

Thank you to Representative Price, Senator Seliger, and thank you so much for joining us.

At this time, I would like to turn the program over to Jill Gibson, Chair of Media Arts and Communication at Amarillo college, who will be our moderator.

(upbeat music) - We are joined now by Texas State Representative Four Price, who's going to explain the first four of the amendments to the Texas Constitution, and the first proposition reads, "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."

So, could you explain a little bit about this proposed amendment?

- Absolutely.

So, this first proposition has to do with expanding what is allowed under the Texas Constitution by ways of games of chance.

So, I've got some notes in front of me, and I want to explain not only what that means, but also give you what has been legislative feedback for pros or cons on the propositions, including this one.

So, back years ago, the original version of the Texas Constitution, before it was amended, required the legislature to pass laws prohibiting lotteries or gift enterprises in the state of Texas effectively prohibiting any games of chance.

Several exceptions over the years have been passed, including exceptions authorizing charitable bingo, for instance, charitable raffles, and obviously the state lottery.

Section 47 of the Constitution is the section that I'm referring to, and it was amended in 15, 2015 to permit professional sports teams to conduct through their charitable foundations, charitable raffles under the terms and conditions as passed by the bills at that time.

So, what this legislative effort does, the bill we passed that is now in the form of a proposition before the voters, would expand that definition of professional sports team to include organizations sanctioned by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, or the Women's Professional Rodeo Association, and on approval by the voters, the proposed amendment, if it becomes law will authorize those professional sports charitable foundations to conduct a charitable raffle at a rodeo event.

So, that's really the basics of Prop One.

There was no opposition to this proposition through the legislative process while committees met.

There was some supportive conversations and feedback that the legislature received noting that these raffles benefit worthy charities, like the American Cancer Society, or the YMCA, for instance.

State law already allows these types of raffles to be held at other events, like NASCAR events or PGA events, and so this is just an extension of that, and it's limited to charitable raffles.

It does not authorize any other game of chance, and so that's the type of feedback we got and that's basically Proposition One.

- Very good, so it can't be extended to other organizations?

- That's correct.

It's very limited in its nature to just the rodeo events, as we define sanctioned by those two associations.

- Okay, let's move on to Proposition Two.

This reads, "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."

- This is a little complicated.

I want to break it down and provide some context, just because it involves some finance terminology that's not always very familiar to too many people, but the Constitution currently authorizes the legislature to establish general law, giving a municipality an authority to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted areas in the municipality, and to pledge for repayment to those bonds or notes, increases in revenue from ad valorem taxes imposed on those properties in the area, so a city already has that type of authority.

This type of financing is referred to as tax increment financing or TIF, and so what this proposition does is it expands that same as the authority to a county.

Now, it becomes complicated in a sense, because the Legislature in 2007 actually passed a bill, but not a constitutional amendment.

They gave counties this authority.

However, several attorneys general over the years have said that since the Constitution wasn't amended there's disagreement, and basically the, the counties couldn't exercise the authority that the Legislature provided back in 2007, so this proposed change limits, or excuse me, expands the authority to counties, but it does limit the authority of those counties to use TIF financing for transportation projects and reinvestment zones only.

So, the feedback we got, supportive and negative, included the following supportive comments in testimony and legislative hearings, included counties need better ways to finance these types of transportation projects, and current level of state transportation funding is far too low to keep pace with the rapid population growth across the state, and so this would be helpful, that reinvestment zones using TIF or tax increment financing, or an effective means of generating funding and that counties should have access to this type of funding mechanism that cities already take advantage of, so that was some of the positive feedback we got.

We got some other positive feedback that says using these tools will decrease the waiting time between planning and execution, because the source of onward funding is already provided for in advance.

There are some folks that didn't agree with that.

They thought the proposed Proposition could produce some unintended consequences, that the range of applicable projects could increase the condemnation authority or the counties through this amendment wouldn't be limited to transportation projects, but I think the language, as I mentioned, is clear that it does.

So, there was some back and forth on this one, but basically it expands the financing capability through tax increment financing to counties that cities already enjoy.

- Okay, Proposition Three is one of two proposed amendments, which are response to the COVID pandemic.

This reads, "The constitutional amendment" "to prohibit this state or a political subdivision" "of this state from prohibiting" "or limiting religious services of religious organizations."

- So Proposition Three, not surprisingly, was really debated in response to the pandemic that we've all experienced since, you know, the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic across the country, and, you know, if you'll remember some of the initial responses included not only the governor, but some, you know, municipalities closing churches and religious services across the state of Texas and many, you know, debates were generated by that, and so, this constitutional amendment would amend the Constitution to ensure the protection of religious services, including services conducted in churches and congregations and places of worship by prohibiting the state or any political subdivision of the state from enacting, adopting, or issuing a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that would prohibit or limit religious services in the state by religious organizations to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief.

So, it was debated and some of the positive or supportive comments that were articulated during that process included the right to freely exercise one's religious beliefs is enshrined in both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, so allowing public officials to limit in-person religious gatherings infringes those Constitutional rights.

Closing churches or houses of worship would negatively impact individuals who rely on those services as a means of combating stress or isolation, and the houses of worship were able to make their own decisions about how best to protect their congregation, and so, those were supportive comments that were received during the debate.

There were some negative comments or opposition to the Proposition, which included the ability of the state and local officials to balance public safety with religious freedom is recognized in other areas through safety codes, like the fire code and other things, so they didn't feel like it was necessary, allowing places of worship to remain open during a pandemic could place Texans in danger, so we heard some of that feedback as well, and that the language may be in the proposition was overly broad and would not be applied correctly.

So, there was both positive or supportive comments and negative comments, but essentially Proposition Three would prohibit the closure of churches or services in Texas for any reason, and that was generated out of a response to COVID-19.

- Proposition Four is about how we choose judges in Texas.

It reads, "The constitutional amendment," "changing the eligibility requirements" "for a justice of this Supreme court," "a judge of the court of criminal appeals" "adjusted justice of the court of appeals" "and a district judge."

So, it would change the eligibility requirements for judges to run for office.

- That's a good summation.

So, Proposition Four absolutely deals with the eligibility or qualifications of certain judges in Texas, so let me break that down a little bit, because there are some distinctions within the proposition itself.

The Constitution establishes requirements for a person to serve as chief justice or a justice of our state Supreme Court.

The provision currently provides that a chief justice or a justice of the Texas Supreme Court must be licensed to practice law in the state, be a citizen of the US, and of this state at the time of election or appointment, have attained the age of 35, and have been a practicing lawyer, or a lawyer and a judge of a court of record for at least 10 years.

The current provision does not specify that those 10 years of legal service or judicial experience has to be in Texas, so the Proposition changes that, so that basically those 10 years have to be 10 years of Texas experience.

You have to be licensed in Texas.

That makes that a little tighter, and then it also adds some language that says your license to practice law must not have been revoked, suspended, or subject to a probated suspension, and if that is passed, that requirement would also apply to the court of criminal appeals and the Court of Appeals justices, so that's why that language is broad, and then it also addresses the qualifications for a district judge, and that's in a separate portion of the Constitution, and so it's set apart and to be eligible for appointment as a district judge, or an election as a district judge, you must be a resident of Texas, and a practicing lawyer, or a practicing lawyer and a judge of a court of this state for a combined total of at least eight years, and that's up from four years, and so, what we are doing there is really heightening the eligibility requirements for all of those types of judges from a district judge up to the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Texas Supreme Court, including the justices and chief justice, and there was good positive feedback, and some opponents, of course, for both of these components of the Proposition, a lot of positive feedback included, you know, support because folks thought that requiring appellate court justices, and our other justices and judges to have higher standards would be better.

We get more experienced jurists, and we would have a better judiciary.

We wanted folks who had more Texas experience, so that was why that language was included as well, and it's important not to have folks who've been subject to disciplinary action running for judicial nomination or election.

Some opponents thought it was unnecessary, that just more experience would not necessarily lead to better judges, and that, you know, maybe by increasing the standards, we would have less folks eligible to be candidates, and so that was some of the opposition that was what was stated, so opposition, but a lot of support, and that's basically it.

It will increase the eligibility requirements for those judges in Prop Four.

- Very good.

Thank you, Representative Price.

- Absolutely, it's my pleasure.

Thanks.

(upbeat music) - We're now joined by Texas State Senator Kel Seliger, and we are going to go over the next four amendments to the Texas Constitution that have been proposed.

We'll start with Proposition Five, and this reads, "The constitutional amendment "providing additional powers to the state commission" "on judicial conduct with respect to candidates" "for judicial office."

Senator, can you tell us a little bit about this proposition?

- I can, there is an inherent unfairness in judicial elections when running against the incumbent, because judges are subject to the code of judicial conduct, but candidates are not, and this ensures that judicial elections are fair by granting the Commission the authority to enforce the same standards for candidates as they do for judges, and it just is, if you're running for judge, Jill, you can say anything bad about the sitting judge that you want to, but the judge cannot respond, and that's just, it is simple fairness.

It's not necessarily going to add the right to be uncivil to anybody, but it's just going to ensure the same rules apply to everyone.

- Any arguments against this Proposition?

- Not that I've heard.

- So, let's move on to Proposition Six.

Proposition Six reads, "The constitutional amendment," "establishing a right for residents" "of certain facilities to designate" "an essential care giver for in-person visitation."

This, I believe was a response to some of the regulations during the COVID pandemic lockdown.

- It is, and I introduced one of the first measures that's designed to address the fact that many nursing homes and assisted living facilities rely on family members, friends, or other caregivers to provide hands-on care, and social or emotional support to people who are in these facilities.

COVID-19 policy saw access to these persons restricted, which had a significant, significant negative impact on residents, and the point was that there are a lot of people that have access to your loved ones when they're in this one of these facilities.

They have strict guidance as to wearing gowns, and masks, and gloves, and things like that, but why not allow family members in?

How many stories did you hear about people who were dying in nursing homes and their family members had to stand outside a glass partition or just see each other on Zoom and things like that, and that's just not right.

If the nurses and doctors have access to the patient's, why shouldn't the loved ones?

And, this was true also in hospice, where people were not allowed access.

Well, as a general rule in hospice, we know what the outcome is going to be, and to not allow family members in just wasn't right.

Nobody meant anything bad by it.

It was how to protect as many people as possible, and it was a reaction to the transmissibility of COVID, and as we've gotten smarter and learned some things, and a real desire to be very humane and compassionate about it, that's what Prop Six is about, and the facility can require you, if you go in to have a mask, a gown, gloves, shoe coverings at your expense, if you want to, but sees to it that you can go into that facility and see a loved one.

- Is there any concern about exposing residents of the facility to disease?

- Absolutely.

There's a lot of concern, and that's why you take those measures, to see that you don't get infected.

If there are some other things to consider, then medical personnel in an extended care facility will impose them, but if you were wearing the same protective equipment as the doctor and the nurse who go in and see your loved one all the time anyway, why don't the same protective measures apply to everyone else?

This is done in the name of humaneness, and medical personnel can change the thing anytime they want.

- Okay, moving right on to Proposition Seven, this is 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 residents homestead.

If the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person's death.

- This simply allows the surviving spouse of a disabled person 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.

Currently, the spouse of that disabled person does not get to keep the property tax limit, provided their spouse upon their death, and this allows that surviving spouse to keep that limitation on school district property taxes.

- So, the goal would be to remove a burden from the surviving spouse?

- Sure.

- And, any arguments against this?

Would it significantly impact property tax revenue?

- I don't know that it will significantly impact it.

It, along with the other measures that have been passed are going to restrict those property taxes, but the response to that sort of a local decision.

If the quality of your police service begins to deteriorate a little bit, it may be because of those budget limitations.

I don't expect that will happen.

- Finally, Proposition Eight.

Proposition Eight reads, "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."

Very similar to Proposition Seven.

- It is.

This one authorizes the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation.

all our part, as you said, of the market value of a homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of armed services who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty, and I think this expands the previous exemptions.

The spouse of those who are killed or fatally injured in a line of duty.

This is a good thing to do for the people that have made the sacrifice.

It will not apply necessarily to a lot of families, but should be a value to the ones to whom it does apply.

- Makes sense.

Very good.

Well, thank you very much, Senator Seliger, and we hope that everyone will vote on election day.

- Everybody should vote on election day, whether you agree with these Propositions or not.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about them.

(upbeat music) - The final item on the ballot is a proposed 24.48% property tax increase for the citizens of Amarillo.

For more information on that, you can go to the League of Women Voters voter information website at VOTE411.org.

The election takes place November 2nd, and we encourage everyone to get out there and vote.

Thanks for joining us.

(upbeat music)