Constitutional Amendment Election

On November 2, 2021, Texans will have the opportunity to approve or disapprove the following proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. Early voting is October 18 through October 29.

Proposition 1 (HJR 143) “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.”

Proposition 2 (HJR 99) “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.”

A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to:

authorize counties to issue bonds to fund transportation and infrastructure projects in blighted areas;
prohibit counties from allocating more than 65% of property tax revenue increases annually to repay the bonds; and
prohibit counties from using the funds from the issuance of the bonds to build a toll road.

A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution, thereby maintaining that only cities and towns may issue bonds to fund transportation and infrastructure projects in blighted areas.

Proposition 3 (SJR 27) “The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”

A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to prohibit the state or any political subdivision from enacting a law, rule, order, or proclamation that limits religious services or organizations.

A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution to prohibit the state or any political subdivision from enacting a law, rule, order, or proclamation that limits religious services or organizations.

Proposition 4 (SJR 47) “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.”

A “yes” vote supports making the following changes to 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:

requires candidates to be residents of Texas as well as citizens of the United States;
requires 10 years of experience in Texas as a practicing lawyer or judge of a state or county court for candidates of the supreme court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, or a court of appeals;
requires 8 years of experience in Texas as a practicing lawyer or judge of a state or county court for candidates of a district court;
disqualifies candidates if their license to practice law was revoked or suspended during experience requirement; and
applies these requirements to individuals elected or appointed to a term beginning after January 1, 2025.

A “no” vote opposes this amendment to make changes to the eligibility requirements for candidates running for the following judicial offices: 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.

Proposition 5 (HJR 165) “The constitutional amendment providing additional powers to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with respect to candidates for judicial office.”

A “yes” vote supports adding a section to the state constitution that authorizes the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to investigate and discipline candidates seeking state judicial office in the same manner as judicial officeholders.

A “no” vote opposes adding a section to the state constitution that authorizes the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to investigate and discipline candidates seeking state judicial office in the same manner as judicial officeholders.

Proposition 6 (SJR 19) “The constitutional amendment establishing a right for residents of certain facilities to designate an essential caregiver for in-person visitation.”

A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to establish a right for residents of nursing or assisted living facilities to designate an essential caregiver, who cannot be prohibited from in-person visitation.

A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution to establish a right for residents of nursing or assisted living facilities to designate an essential caregiver, who cannot be prohibited from in-person visitation.

Proposition 7 (HJR 125) “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.”

A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to allow the surviving spouse of a disabled individual to maintain a homestead property tax limit if the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the death and remains at the homestead.

A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution to allow the surviving spouse of a disabled individual to maintain a homestead property tax limit if the spouse is 55 years of age or older at the time of the death and remains at the homestead.

Proposition 8 (SJR 35) “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.”

A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to allow the legislature to provide a homestead property tax exemption for the surviving spouse of a military member “killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.”

A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution, thereby maintaining the existing language that authorizes a tax exemption for the spouse of a military member “killed in action.”