Attention all Texans!

Texas gets to vote on 17 constitutional amendments this year. Do your homework and decide how you will vote before you go to the polls.

Here's a two-page PDF guide to help inform your decisions. Download it. Share it. Print it. 👉 https://t.co/P1aZcniK5V pic.twitter.com/TTjpKAgCDI

— Jen Robichaux (@JenRobichaux) October 19, 2025

This is a good Yes/No commentary on the propositions.

schmellba99 said:

---

Also - can't understand why people would be against Prop 1.

We are in desperate need for skilled labor in just about every single sector of the economy. There is a reason STEM programs in high schools are becoming huge programs that schools and communities are investing a lot of time and money in, not every kid is a college kid and we damn sure don't need every kid going to college.

Providing a more robust technical program for those that go beyond high school to obtain technicnical degrees or certifications required by industry, but aren't college degrees, is absolutely a benefit for everybody.

Or we can continue to import indians, pakis, and other brows that do a lot of the technical work and complain about how we can't understand "Bob" when we call on the phone or how when your toilet isn't flushing your poo away that the plumber says they can't get there for 3 or 4 days because they are backlogged, etc.

Technical education is a huge deal, and we are at the point now IMO where it is a better value for the person getting the education as well as everybody else who benefits from somebody that gets that education.

---

That was my first thought. It's not a new tax or funding. That would have to be done by the leg. I've searched and don't see a good reason to oppose it.


Here is what I see as far as opposition:

Because it amends the constitution, it reduces flexibility for future legislatures - once the funds/infrastructure commitments are embedded, it's harder to redirect resources.

Some may argue that while technical education is important, embedding it via constitutional amendment might be overreach or prioritizing one sector over others.

As with any amendment, there are questions of oversight: how will the funds be used, who controls decisions, and how will performance be measured?

YouBet said:

---

I'm also against 11. Most of the demographic buying and selling homes are olds. And we are going to give them additional tax breaks?

We keep removing people from the tax rolls both federally (tax on tips and overtime) and at state level. That's great and all if you have an actual plan to replace existing tax policy with something wholly different and you plan to cut spending, but we don't and we won't.

---

Not all olds are wealthy. Many and in fact most are on fixed incomes. Property taxes rise past the point from being a user service fee to a tax on unrealized gain. Olds on fixed income can no longer the property taxes and are forced to sell homes they don't want to sell.

This is a long-standing protection for the elderly in Texas, and the limit needs to be adjusted periodically for inflation.

edit -Looks llke in Texas olds get their property values frozen when they turn 65. This would provide an even higher homestead exemption for them.

schmellba99 said:

---

Also - can't understand why people would be against Prop 1.

We are in desperate need for skilled labor in just about every single sector of the economy. There is a reason STEM programs in high schools are becoming huge programs that schools and communities are investing a lot of time and money in, not every kid is a college kid and we damn sure don't need every kid going to college.

Providing a more robust technical program for those that go beyond high school to obtain technicnical degrees or certifications required by industry, but aren't college degrees, is absolutely a benefit for everybody.

Or we can continue to import indians, pakis, and other brows that do a lot of the technical work and complain about how we can't understand "Bob" when we call on the phone or how when your toilet isn't flushing your poo away that the plumber says they can't get there for 3 or 4 days because they are backlogged, etc.

Technical education is a huge deal, and we are at the point now IMO where it is a better value for the person getting the education as well as everybody else who benefits from somebody that gets that education.

---

My business depends on trades...welders, electricians. So I'm certainly firm on the side of supporting skilled labor development.

One concern I have is that this is push far more than it is pull. Whether the programs exist or not, people have to want to go that route. There is a ton of funding for this type of thing today between workforce training, tax breaks for companies, coemployment with trade school students, internships, etc. We've tried 3 different times (Parker County and Tarrant County) to use some of these programs - at the high school, trade school and college levels. Each time we were a year or more into the process before we backed out without ever getting benefit out of the program. The speed at which some of these programs operate is frightening slow. In one case, we went for 7 months with a trade school trying to develop a curriculum around welding practices that we handed to them. I don't know if its the lack of interest from potential students, enrollees and employees or what but the administration of these programs is lackadaisical.

Prop 1 simply moves capex money that's going to be allocated by the leg into a fund where the TSTC board of regents can make decisions about capex expenditures instead of them having to be voted on every other year. It's most likely a rubber stamp vote anyway based on the board's recs.

This should be a yes vote. The only valid argument against it is "potential lack of transparency".

schmellba99 said:

---

Predmid said:

---

Absolutely need to vote for Prop 4.

We need the water. Badly.

---

This.

The summary of Prop 4 is poorly worded.

The Texas Water Revolving Fund isn't a slush fund like so many think it is. It's a fund created that provides low interest loans to municipalities that don't have the ability to self fund infrastructure projects for water supply, treatment, wastewater treatment, etc.

It is especially critical for smaller and more rural areas who simply don't have millions sitting in the bank but need to upgrade their systems. Much of the water infrastructure in Texas is old AF and at the end of it's useable life cycle because it was put in in the 70's and 80's and 40-50 years is about all you can expect out of any system like that.

---

The loans are low interest, yes.

The paperwork and administrative overhead to apply for and administer the loans adds a shtton of cost to the projects. I suspect you are aware of this. Add to this the reality that many small water systems apply for these loans to remedy TCEQ compliance issues, and TCEQ and TWDB don't talk to each other. It adds that much more delay and complexity to the projects that small water systems can't understand or afford, so they dump that on the consulting engineers... which just adds more cost.

Oh, and then there's Davis Bacon wage rates and Build America Buy America compliance. Ever have to find a contractor willing to work on one of these TWDB projects out in a place like Crockett County?


Bottom line is my experience is that any cost saving borrowing money from TWDB is displaced by the administrative cost of dealing with them.

There it is. The "fixed income". Double speak for "failed to plan adequately for their retirement".

Apparently younger people are on unlimited incomes and just haven't demanded enough money from their employers? Maybe they should unfix their income instead of demanding that those still working pay more in taxes while the unprepared get yet larger breaks.

torrid said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I'm also against 11. Most of the demographic buying and selling homes are olds. And we are going to give them additional tax breaks?

We keep removing people from the tax rolls both federally (tax on tips and overtime) and at state level. That's great and all if you have an actual plan to replace existing tax policy with something wholly different and you plan to cut spending, but we don't and we won't.

---

Not all olds are wealthy. Many and in fact most are on fixed incomes. Property taxes rise past the point from being a user service fee to a tax on unrealized gain. Olds on fixed income can no longer the property taxes and are forced to sell homes they don't want to sell.

This is a long-standing protection for the elderly in Texas, and the limit needs to be adjusted periodically for inflation.

edit -Looks llke in Texas olds get their property values frozen when they turn 65. This would provide an even higher homestead exemption for them.

---

Nope, not true. Value is not frozen.

That's a bit of a dodge. The school portion, which is most of a real property tax bill, can't collect more money. I'd call that a partial freeze in plain language.

Tax Code 11.26 said:

---

A school district may not increase the total annual amount of ad valorem tax it imposes on the residence homestead of an individual 65 years of age or older or on the residence homestead of an individual who is disabled, as defined by Section 11.13, above the amount of the tax it imposed in the first tax year in which the individual qualified that residence homestead for the applicable exemption...

---

normaleagle05 said:

---

There it is. The "fixed income". Double speak for "failed to plan adequately for their retirement".

Apparently younger people are on unlimited incomes and just haven't demanded enough money from their employers? Maybe they should unfix their income instead of demanding that those still working pay more in taxes while the unprepared get yet larger breaks.

---

"Fixed income" could very well mean withdrawing a fixed amount from their retirement savings so as not to compromise their principle and run out of money. Once you hit retirement, every financial strategy says move to low risk assets like bonds that will potentially offset inflation and pay out for you to live on, but you're not going to see the 7-10% annual returns of your growth years. You can't simply "unfix your income" and start spending faster without risking your retirement funds.

That's not a fixed income. It's an excuse for poor planning to justify voting for pushing tax liability onto those that haven't retired yet but are trying. You can unfix that by spending less (which of the gov did we really could reduce taxes), withdrawing more, getting a part time job, or working a cash side hustle.

People who have maxed out their ability to work more hours in a week are on something much more akin to a fixed income. Instead we've got the proposition to transfer tax liability onto them instead of "doing nothing to reduce taxes". And people can't understand why some are opposed to that.

normaleagle05 said:

---

That's a bit of a dodge. The school portion, which is most of a real property tax bill, can't collect more money. I'd call that a partial freeze in plain language.

Tax Code 11.26 said:

---

A school district may not increase the total annual amount of ad valorem tax it imposes on the residence homestead of an individual 65 years of age or older or on the residence homestead of an individual who is disabled, as defined by Section 11.13, above the amount of the tax it imposed in the first tax year in which the individual qualified that residence homestead for the applicable exemption...

---

---

And as you say, that is a bit of a dodge...numerous "add ons" bypass the freeze you highlight from Section 11.26. Interest and Sinking debt (bonds), disaster recovery, specific company tax breaks (like for Samsung), and Robin Hood; all bypass the "freeze", ....for Travis county ISD this year for example, even with "the new freeze" people are seeing 5% - 15% increases.

So, when given the opportunity to reduce any classification for any reason, I'll vote to do that. They're too damn high in every jurisdiction and there's nothing yet on the table to repeal them. So, until that happens, I'll chip away any way I can.

Personal example, for the County, ESD and Heathcare district in my area, taxes are up 22%, 18% and 20%. So even if ISD was "theoretically" frozen (which it is "practically", not) I still get hammered.

Quote:

---

Looks llke in Texas olds get their property values frozen when they turn 65

---

I don't believe that is true. I think they get their school property taxes frozen but nothing else. Can someone clarify?

edit: seems like previously addressed

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

Looks llke in Texas olds get their property values frozen when they turn 65

---

I don't believe that is true. I think they get their school property taxes frozen but nothing else. Can someone clarify?

---

See my note above

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

Looks llke in Texas olds get their property values frozen when they turn 65

---

I don't believe that is true. I think they get their school property taxes frozen but nothing else. Can someone clarify?

---

It looks to be just the school portion of property taxes which is typically 50% of the total bill. But that "unfreezes" if you make improvements and then I assume a new baseline is set post-improvement.

japantiger said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

Looks llke in Texas olds get their property values frozen when they turn 65

---

I don't believe that is true. I think they get their school property taxes frozen but nothing else. Can someone clarify?

---

See my note above

---

Agreed - thanks. I think we're on same page. Original statement was that property values were frozen which is not correct.

#15 may be worth a harder look...I tend to agree with TTP

Quote:

---

Proposition 15 SJR 34 "The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children."
Position: Oppose (as unnecessary because this is a right already established by God)
Comment: Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the State Constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect. In our opinion, if we put things like this into the Constitution, it equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.
Fiscal Note Prop 15: No fiscal implication to the state is anticipated, other than the cost of publication. The cost to the state for publication of the resolution is $191,689.

---

https://truetexasproject.com/constitutional-amendments-review-recommendations/

That's the right thought philisophically, sure.

But we also know that murder is wrong without defining that fact statutorily.

I'm very thankful for laws outlawing abortion, murder etc.

Since many people tend to only read ballot language, I have no doubt Prop 15 will pass, but it won't be on my vote.

Of course there will be those who do read, research, and think and still conclude this is a wise decision. I don't mean to imply everyone who votes "yes" is going in blindly, but I also feel strongly that if we really think this through we can see how it's not something we want to do.

We already are the primary decision maker for our children; that's a God-given right. I don't want the government thinking they are giving me that right or have the ability to affirm it, that easily leads to the government thinking they then have the ability to take that right away.

In the original language they had the really nasty, sneaky clause about unless there is a compelling reason; to me, that shows the true intent and foreshadows the future.

Furthermore, there are words in the amendment language, like "nurture" and "protect", that need defining and I don't want the government defining them. If I deny gender reassignment surgery for my child, is the government going to say I'm not fulfilling my responsibility to nurture and protect them?

I think the Grayson County Conservatives say it well: This is a fake parental rights amendment that actually codifies a government role in the parent-child relationship. The proposition sounds good but the amendment itself puts parental rights at risk.

Before people vote no on Prop 15, please read this:

https://familyfreedomproject.org/parental-rights-amendment/

I understand that parental rights are God given. This amendment is codifying a lot of case law. The FFP is also an organization that is engaged in parental rights cases and supports this amendment.

Has the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution protected our rights from the government? How is this different? Madison initially opposed the BoR because he did not believe the Constitution gave the government the power to take away the rights of the people. I for one am glad that the BoR was passed, and I support this amendment in Texas.

My only concern with this one is what could happen in the hands of a leftist judge in terms of transitioning minors, etc.

I don't want to give them a leg to stand on - I think it would get resolved upon appeal but you're looking at years of bad rulings potentially.

What exactly is being enshrined? There is absolutely no defining of our rights. It's very vague and up to interpretation. Like I said in my post, if I deny my child gender reassignment surgery, am I neglecting my responsibility as a parent and therefore open to government involvement?

A is A said:

---

Talk to me about twelve. Pros? Cons? How's does this change current state?

---

It is almost impossible now to censure a judge that is out of line. This will make it easier.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Since many people tend to only read ballot language, I have no doubt Prop 15 will pass, but it won't be on my vote.

Of course there will be those who do read, research, and think and still conclude this is a wise decision. I don't mean to imply everyone who votes "yes" is going in blindly, but I also feel strongly that if we really think this through we can see how it's not something we want to do.

We already are the primary decision maker for our children; that's a God-given right. I don't want the government thinking they are giving me that right or have the ability to affirm it, that easily leads to the government thinking they then have the ability to take that right away.

In the original language they had the really nasty, sneaky clause about unless there is a compelling reason; to me, that shows the true intent and foreshadows the future.

Furthermore, there are words in the amendment language, like "nurture" and "protect", that need defining and I don't want the government defining them. If I deny gender reassignment surgery for my child, is the government going to say I'm not fulfilling my responsibility to nurture and protect them?

I think the Grayson County Conservatives say it well: This is a fake parental rights amendment that actually codifies a government role in the parent-child relationship. The proposition sounds good but the amendment itself puts parental rights at risk.

---

The left doesn't believe in God. Government is their god.

Isn't it managed by the Texas Water Development Board? And aren't the projects part of the ones approved by the State Water Plan, which the regions "percolate" up to the state? And this fund provides low interest loans for said projects that have been identified each update to the water plan?

I generally oppose anything that singles out one group of people for different treatment.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

#15 may be worth a harder look...I tend to agree with TTP

Quote:

---

Proposition 15 SJR 34 "The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children."
Position: Oppose (as unnecessary because this is a right already established by God)
Comment: Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the State Constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect. In our opinion, if we put things like this into the Constitution, it equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.
Fiscal Note Prop 15: No fiscal implication to the state is anticipated, other than the cost of publication. The cost to the state for publication of the resolution is $191,689.

---

https://truetexasproject.com/constitutional-amendments-review-recommendations/

---

This is the same logic used in opposition of the Bill of Rights by the Federalists.

If you believe the Federalists were correct then vote NO on Prop 15.

If you believe the Anti-Federalists (Proponents of the BOR) were correct then vote YES on Prop 15.

With a third of the precincts in, it seems Texans will vote FOR anything you stick in front of them to the tune of at least 66%.

96AgGrad said:

---

With a third of the precincts in, it seems Texans will vote FOR anything you stick in front of them to the tune of at least 66%.

---

Ballot propositions rarely get defeated.

No different than all the idiots here in Brazos County voting to give Bryan ISD over $400 million dollars to play with. BISD says they won't raise taxes to cover the bonds, but next year, they'll raise them by the maximum they can.

oldag941 said:

---

Isn't it managed by the Texas Water Development Board? And aren't the projects part of the ones approved by the State Water Plan, which the regions "percolate" up to the state? And this fund provides low interest loans for said projects that have been identified each update to the water plan?

---

Still see it as a slush fund. Way too many times in history where a company gets loans from boards like this who are buddy buddy with a member etc. and then those funds never get repaid because the company went belly up.

Basically, if it would lower my taxes or prevent a future tax increase/new tax, I voted for it. If it would raise my taxes (three school bond line items) I voted against it. Also voted FOR the provision denying bail under certain circumstances.

ALL PASSED

I'm all for dementia prevention efforts, but we just passed another slush fund. As someone earlier said, we don't know how to vote 'no' as a state.

Quote:

---

Proposition 14 SJR 3 (Enabling Legislation SB 5) "The constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund to provide money for research on and prevention and treatment of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and related disorders in this state, and transferring to that fund $3 billion from state general revenue."

---

TommyBrady said:

---

ALL PASSED

---

Texas voters truly are idiotic in mass when it comes to amendments. So frustrating...

I didn't think the funds went to a company. Rather to a municipality or MUD or wholesaler like DWU or NTMWD. Those will never go belly up. They are public or semi-public entities.