Vote on Election Day, November 2nd
VOTE ON
NOVEMBER 2ND ELECTION DAY!
Click here for Dallas County Election Day Information
Proposition No. 1 Against:
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.
This proposition is the gateway to gambling. Each year, the legislature tries to pass a gambling law of some sort; although, it has been unsuccessful thus far. Gambling in the form of a raffle is still gambling.
Proposition No. 2 Against:
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.
Notice the emotional trigger words: "underdeveloped, blighted". Are they trying to guilt trip us? This basically allows “poor” counties to get your tax dollars. This is very similar to the Robin Hood law for schools. Furthermore, as our ALF principles state, "Spending money you don't have and have no hope of getting is a recipe for disaster. Thus, we believe in FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY."
Proposition No. 3 For:
The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.
This would mean that no government entity can compel a church to close or limit religious services during. While we don't ever want to ask the government for permission to conduct religious services, the political hostility towards conservatives and Christians persuades us to add another layer of Constitutional strength to our existing God given right to exercise our religious liberties.
Proposition No. 4 Against:
The constitutional amendment changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.
This proposition would mandate 10 years of experience as a practicing lawyer in the State of Texas or a practicing lawyer and judge of a state court or county court for a combined total of at least 10 years to be eligible to serve as Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. While it looks good in theory, could there be unintended consequences? Do we have strong evidence suggesting that this amendment is needed?
Proposition No. 5 Against:
The constitutional amendment providing additional powers to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with respect to candidates for judicial office.
No more power to unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to us!
Proposition No. 6 For:
The constitutional amendment establishing a right for residents of certain facilities to designate an essential caregiver for in-person visitation.Again, this amendment would not be needed except for the fact that we are living in an upside down, lawless world. Now we have to fight for our common sense, God-given rights!
Proposition No. 7 Against:
The constitutional amendment to allow the surviving spouse of a person who is disabled to receive a limitation on the school district ad valorem taxes on the spouse’s residence homestead if the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person’s death.
Notice the emotional content in this proposition. Hard cases make bad law. It’s not the proper role of the government to give special tax breaks to special people. Every other year, in our constitutional amendment elections, a new group (of special people) is given an ad valorem tax exemption, thus putting more tax burdens on the rest of us tax-paying citizens. Read "Not Yours To Give" about the experience of Davy Crockett when confronted with a similar scenario.
Proposition No. 8 Against:
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.
Same song, second verse. Notice the emotional content in this proposition. Hard cases make bad law. It’s not the proper role of the government to give special tax breaks to special people. Every other year, in our constitutional amendment elections, a new group (of special people) is given an ad valorem tax exemption, thus putting more tax burdens on the rest of us tax-paying citizens. Read "Not Yours To Give" about the experience of Davy Crockett when confronted with a similar scenario.
VOTE ON
NOVEMBER 2ND ELECTION DAY!
Click here for Dallas County Election Day Information
Proposition No. 1 Against:
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.
This proposition is the gateway to gambling. Each year, the legislature tries to pass a gambling law of some sort; although, it has been unsuccessful thus far. Gambling in the form of a raffle is still gambling.
Proposition No. 2 Against:
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.
Notice the emotional trigger words: "underdeveloped, blighted". Are they trying to guilt trip us? This basically allows “poor” counties to get your tax dollars. This is very similar to the Robin Hood law for schools. Furthermore, as our ALF principles state, "Spending money you don't have and have no hope of getting is a recipe for disaster. Thus, we believe in FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY."
Proposition No. 3 For:
The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.
This would mean that no government entity can compel a church to close or limit religious services during. While we don't ever want to ask the government for permission to conduct religious services, the political hostility towards conservatives and Christians persuades us to add another layer of Constitutional strength to our existing God given right to exercise our religious liberties.
Proposition No. 4 Against:
The constitutional amendment changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.
This proposition would mandate 10 years of experience as a practicing lawyer in the State of Texas or a practicing lawyer and judge of a state court or county court for a combined total of at least 10 years to be eligible to serve as Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. While it looks good in theory, could there be unintended consequences? Do we have strong evidence suggesting that this amendment is needed?
Proposition No. 5 Against:
The constitutional amendment providing additional powers to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with respect to candidates for judicial office.
No more power to unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to us!
Proposition No. 6 For:
The constitutional amendment establishing a right for residents of certain facilities to designate an essential caregiver for in-person visitation.Again, this amendment would not be needed except for the fact that we are living in an upside down, lawless world. Now we have to fight for our common sense, God-given rights!
Proposition No. 7 Against:
The constitutional amendment to allow the surviving spouse of a person who is disabled to receive a limitation on the school district ad valorem taxes on the spouse’s residence homestead if the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the person’s death.
Notice the emotional content in this proposition. Hard cases make bad law. It’s not the proper role of the government to give special tax breaks to special people. Every other year, in our constitutional amendment elections, a new group (of special people) is given an ad valorem tax exemption, thus putting more tax burdens on the rest of us tax-paying citizens. Read "Not Yours To Give" about the experience of Davy Crockett when confronted with a similar scenario.
Proposition No. 8 Against:
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.
Same song, second verse. Notice the emotional content in this proposition. Hard cases make bad law. It’s not the proper role of the government to give special tax breaks to special people. Every other year, in our constitutional amendment elections, a new group (of special people) is given an ad valorem tax exemption, thus putting more tax burdens on the rest of us tax-paying citizens. Read "Not Yours To Give" about the experience of Davy Crockett when confronted with a similar scenario.
