Texas, second only to Alabama in Constitutional dysfunction

Politics
1

https://www.caller.com/story/news/columnists/john-moritz/2023/11/11/no-amendment-too-mundane-for-inclusion-texas-state-constitution/71529879007/

Just prior to this month’s election, the Texas Constitution was 92,025 words in length. It likely has gained about 1,000 to 2,000 new words with the 13 amendments just passed.

Mind you, they still have a long way to catch Alabama with its 402,852 word constitution. :smile:

Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14 all represent dysfunction.

Amendments 5, 6, 7, 8 & 14 all set up funds for various purposes. This should be accomplishable by ordinary legislation.

Amendment 9 authorized adjustments to the teacher’s annuity system. Again, this should be accomplishable by legislation.

Amendment 10 authorized a special property tax exemption for medical supplies. Ditto.

Amendment 11 & 12 were limited in application to one county each, one concerning issuing bonds, the other concerning abolition of a county office. In each case, the county should have had the ability to accomplish the respective ends, without needing a damned statewide vote.

As with Alabama, the original Texas Constitution granted the Texas Legislature a very limited set of powers, banning any powers not specifically delegated. Thus, Texas must govern by Constitutional Amendment (literally direct democracy) rather than by ordinary acts of the legislature.

In addition, county governments lack home rule entirely and municipal home rule, while extant, is insufficient. Thus a statewide vote was required to abolish the office of County Treasurer in Galveston County.

The way to avoid this dysfunction is to flip the basic constitutional formula on its head. Give the legislature a broad grant of power, but ban or limit certain powers as desired.

In addition, provide full home rule for both counties and municipalities.

Of course, the constitutional issues do not end here. For example, Texas desperately needs an entire rewrite of its judicial system.

There have been attempts in Texas to reform the State Constitution, but they have been mostly unsuccessful to this point.

But Texas is clearly in the top four States (with Alabama, New York and California) that need major constitutional revision.

34 States have constitutions that are significantly overlength, 20,000 words or more.

Of those 34, 9 are critically overlength, 50,000 words or more.

12 State Constitutions are mildly overlength, between 12,001 and 20,000 words.

4 State Constitutions are reasonably long, 12,000 words or less, with Vermont coming in at a pithy 8,565 words.

A State Constitution should outline the basic rights of persons, the basic structure of government and the powers of government. Policy has no place in the Constitution. It is the inclusion of policy that drives excessive length.

2

By contrast, the model constitutional language below, 1,055 words in length, could replace fully 80,000 of the words in the current Texas Constitution and perhaps 390,000 words of the Alabama Constitution. Even if you expanded the below text to restrict or limit additional powers, you would be hard pressed to take this section beyond 2,000 words.

§ 8. [Power of the State]

The General Assembly shall have power to lay and collect taxes and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the defense and welfare of the State of Vermont, subject to the limitations prescribed in Section 8a.;

To borrow money on the credit of the State of Vermont, subject to the limitations prescribed in Section 8a.;

To exercise any power that a sovereign State may of right possess, except any power delegated to the United States by the Constitution of the United States and any power forbidden to the several States by the Constitution of the United States, subject to the limitations prescribed in Section 8a.; — And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the State of Vermont, or in any department or officer thereof.

§ 8a. [Limitations]

All excises shall be uniform throughout the State of Vermont.

The General Assembly shall never impose a capitation tax nor a direct tax on wealth or personal property, but may impose a direct tax on real property. No political subdivision of the State of Vermont, other than the General Assembly, shall impose a tax on incomes, estates or inheritances, nor shall any political subdivision of the State of Vermont impose a capitation tax nor a direct tax on wealth or personal property, but may impose a direct tax on real property.

When the State of Vermont or any political subdivision shall incur debt, it shall do so by issuing bonds for the incurred debt, structured so that such occurrence of debt will be paid off in no longer than thirty years. When the State of Vermont or any political subdivision shall issue bonds, they shall levy a dedicated tax to retire such debt, which may be in the form of a levy on real property or a tax on sales, sufficient pay off the principle and interest on such bonds on time. Such tax levy shall continue until the bonds are paid in full and shall automatically cease at that time.

The General Assembly shall never legislate on any general or special appropriations bill.

Neither the General Assembly, nor any school district shall cause the general revenue of the public schools to be expended in support of any non-public school or any voucher intended to be used at a non-public school or for the purposes of home schooling.

Neither the General Assembly, nor any school district or other subordinate political unit shall ever regulate the practice of home schooling. However, if reasonable suspicion arises that minor children are intellectually neglected under the guise of home schooling or are falling behind their age peers in educational achievement, the State may require that such children be enrolled in the public schools and the parents may be civilly and criminally sanctioned as the law provides.

Neither the General Assembly, nor any county or municipality shall enact any law establishing rent control. Neither the General Assembly nor any county or municipality shall ever enact any law infringing on the property rights of landlords, except to the minimal extent necessary to ensure landlords abide by duly contracted rental agreements. Landlords shall be entitled to the prompt response of the County Sheriff in evicting tenants for cause. Tenants being removed for cause shall be entitled to no more than twenty four hours notice of eviction. Tenants who are not renewed due to no fault of their own shall be entitled to at least thirty days notice that their lease is not being renewed. Tenants have no inherent rights to the property they have leased and occupy, other than the right to faithful adherence to the terms of the lease by the landlord.

The General Assembly shall never establish a State Guard in the State of Vermont or any other paramilitary organization or militia, other than the State National Guard. No subordinate government unit of the State of Vermont shall ever establish any paramilitary organization or militia.

The General Assembly shall pass no special law of any kind, nor any general law of local application.

The General Assembly shall pass no law infringing upon the power of political subdivisions, including school districts, counties and municipalities to tax or incur debt. The General Assembly shall pass no law requiring a referendum on the issues of taxation and occurrence of debt by such political subdivisions.

The General Assembly shall pass no law altering the charter or form of government of any political subdivision that has adopted a home rule charter.

All laws for the governance of non-home rule political subdivisions shall be uniform throughout the State of Vermont, but the State of Vermont may provide for differences in government structure based upon the population of counties, municipalities and school districts.

All revenues arising from a state lottery and all tax revenue arising from lotteries and gambling, other than bingo, authorized by the State of Vermont shall be for the sole use of public education, no less than eighty percent of such revenues to be disbursed directly to individual school districts on a per capita basis.

Bingo shall be legal in the State of Vermont and shall not be taxed by the State of Vermont or any political subdivision, but shall be conducted only by churches or non-profit organizations and any net proceeds of bingo beyond the cost of running the game shall be used solely for charitable purposes.

§ 9. [Forbidden power]

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

No law shall pass impairing the obligation of contracts.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the State of Vermont: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the General Assembly, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

1 Like
3

Texas comes in second again in another type of Constitutional dysfunction, that being the design and implementation of the State Judiciary.

New York is the worst in this regard with an incredible inefficient and redundant bunch of courts with confusing and overlapping jurisdictions. And a Supreme Court that is not actually a “supreme” court.

As for Texas.

Starting at the very top. Texas (along with Oklahoma) has a unique split high court structure. A Supreme Court which is the court of last resort for civil appeals and a Court of Criminal Appeals which is the court of last resort for, duh, criminal appeals. :smile: Nine Justices on each. One Supreme Court with seven Justices like the vast majority of other States would do just fine.

Then there are the 14 Courts of Appeals, 2 of which (the 1st and 14th) overlap the same territorial jurisdiction. Should be reduced to no more than 5 to 7 districts with no overlaps.

Now we get down to the trial level where it gets real funky.

District Courts are the courts of general jurisdiction, hearing felonies and civil cases, sharing civil jurisdiction and family law jurisdiction with other courts. Each District Court has only one judge, so when the legislature wants more Judges, they have to create new courts.

Several larger counties have probate courts.

Then you have Constitutional County Courts and the similar sounding, but different, Statutory County Courts at Law. Constitutional County Courts have a more limited jurisdiction and the Judges serve in the civil government of the county. Statutory County Courts of Law are established by the legislature in some counties to relieve the Constitutional County Court of court duties and has a somewhat broader jurisdiction.

Then you have Municipal Courts.

Finally you have Justice of the Peace Courts.

Bottom line, burn it to the ground and redesign the system from scratch.

One Supreme Court, 7 Justices and entirely discretionary jurisdiction.

5 to 7 Courts of Appeals, mandatory intermediate jurisdiction.

A Superior Court which would have general jurisdiction, including felonies and major civil cases. A single court might cover just one large county (Harris) or as many as 10 small counties (Loving).

A County Court which would have limited jurisdiction, including misdemeanors and minor civil cases. Each court would cover one county, except perhaps in the case of Loving County, which would be attached to another county due to its exceedingly small population.

(Note: Unlike the existing Texas Constitutional County Courts, the new courts would have nothing to do with the day to day governance of the county.)

And that is all the courts you need.

The Federal system, as well as the State of Florida are good models for structure of a court system.

Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and a number of other States just need to burn down their existing judicial structures and start from scratch.

4

I agree. Should not come here.

3 Likes
5

That got missed in the Cato poll. Texas was one of the most free states for business freedom. Dead last in personal freedom.

6

You have a knack for making indecipherable comments sometimes.

I have NO idea what you were trying to say there. :smile:

7

Actually, not. :smile:

From Cato below:

Personal freedom is abysmally low in Texas. Criminal justice policies are generally aggressive, but reforms have been ongoing in the state for some time. Even controlling for crime rates, the incarceration rate is far above the national average but has been improving. Drug arrests have fallen over time and are now slightly above the current average relative to the number of users in the state. Nondrug victimless crime arrests have also fallen over time and are now well below the national average—a change that testifies to the effectiveness of criminal justice reform efforts. Asset forfeiture is mostly unreformed, but law enforcement participation in equitable sharing has declined with regard to revenues. Cannabis laws are not only harsh; they are the worst in the country. Even cultivating seven grams or more carries a mandatory minimum of six months. In 2013–14, the state banned the mostly harmless psychedelic Salvia divinorum. Access to medical marijuana was expanded in 2021, however. Travel freedom is low. The state requires fingerprints for driver’s licenses and does not regulate automated license plate readers. It has little legal gambling; sports betting remains illegal. Educational freedom is meager in Texas, which has lagged behind other conservative states. It has no private school choice programs (though reform efforts are ongoing in the state as we go to press in 2023), but at least private schools and homeschools are largely unregulated. Tobacco freedom is moderate, as smoking bans have not gone as far as in other states. Gun rights are above average, and the state is now in the top half after languishing for years despite Texas’s reputation. Open carry was legalized in 2015. The big positive reform came in 2021 with the passage of constitutional carry. Alcohol freedom is above average, with taxes low. Texas has virtually no campaign finance regulations.

8

a good portion of 8A is special interest garbage.

9

I kind of like the idea of separate civil and criminal supreme courts. Hadn’t ever heard of it, but I like it.

10

Especially the pompous idiots who think they know what’s best for a land that’s completely foreign to them. Those are the wort kind of nuisances. :rofl:

1 Like
11

It only exists in two States, Texas and Oklahoma.

If you change the Supreme Court to discretionary jurisdiction, you not only would not need the second court, but you could cut 9 Justices to 7 Justices.

Most appeals should end in the intermediate court of appeals. Very few appeals that need to go to the Supreme Court, whether they be civil or criminal.

They actually tried to change to a two court Supreme Court in Florida a number of years ago, but the voters rejected it decisively.

12

8A limits abusive tax practices.

It provides for home rule for local governments and keeps the legislature from interfering in local government and issues.

The closest you get to “special interest” are the gambling and bingo issues. Basically requires tax revenue from gambling to go to education and limits bingo to charity purposes only. The landlord provision is a protection of the private property rights of landlords, not a grant of special interest.

In any event, it is model language only. The idea is that the section is just a few hundred words, as opposed to language in most state constitutions that run into the tens of thousands of words and micro manage.

13

I really don’t get this uber-parochial attitude.

I really don’t.

We may be residents of our particular states.

But we are all citizens of the United States.

And what happens in other States tends to affect all of us.

I have been to Texas many times, including to areas well off the beaten path in the backcountry. I have friends and relatives who live there.

My company does extensive business. Including suing and being sued in the State Courts of Texas. State Courts handle a substantial amount of caseload from out of State plaintiffs and defendants. Thus the structure of State Courts effects the nation as a whole.

But also, it is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

I was born and raised in Pennsylvania.

But I never realized its peculiar dysfunctions until I left the State to live elsewhere for the first time.

In any event, basic principles are the same, regardless of where you live.

14

Yeah, I know. :wink:

15

Mmmmmmm

Does it?

16

I agree with you. You should never move to or even visit Texas.

1 Like
17

“Does this actually affect me?” is a question we should all ask ourselves more often.

Especially when the only reason we know about it is the internet. Constant flood of agitprop.

18

the education stuff is garbage, kowtowing to teachers unions

1 Like
19

Here are the three mentions of education.

Neither the General Assembly, nor any school district shall cause the general revenue of the public schools to be expended in support of any non-public school or any voucher intended to be used at a non-public school or for the purposes of home schooling.

While it is vogue for some conservatives to support vouchers, I vehemently oppose them. I homeschooled my own children, but did so entirely with my own money and neither desired nor would have taken government money.

With government money comes government control, through government strings. Once you, I or anybody takes government money, we hang from the string the government has attached to it and must dance to the government’s mandates that come with the money.

Nor is it even necessary to receive government financial support when homeschooling. Homeschooling resources are abundant, homeschooling coops exist, no need for government money.

Neither the General Assembly, nor any school district or other subordinate political unit shall ever regulate the practice of home schooling. However, if reasonable suspicion arises that minor children are intellectually neglected under the guise of home schooling or are falling behind their age peers in educational achievement, the State may require that such children be enrolled in the public schools and the parents may be civilly and criminally sanctioned as the law provides.

This article actually directly CONTRADICTS the NEA resolutions on homeschooling, which DEMAND government regulation of homeschooling. I am doing 100% opposite of what the teacher’s unions want with this article.

All revenues arising from a state lottery and all tax revenue arising from lotteries and gambling, other than bingo, authorized by the State of Vermont shall be for the sole use of public education, no less than eighty percent of such revenues to be disbursed directly to individual school districts on a per capita basis.

Earmarking lottery and gambling revenue to education is pretty much standard practice, nothing controversial here.

The model constitution does not even contain a requirement that public schools exist, leaving that to the legislature.

20

■■■■■■■■■ your little bow to the NEA mentions home schooling but also forbids ANY voucher program to ANY private school. I really don’t care about home schooling and wouldn’t spend 2 cents paying someone to educate their own kids. There is absolutely no reason why a voucher program allowing parents to take their kids out of failing public schools to attend a private school should not exist.

why should the state have any power based on “reasonable suspicion?” Why force them into public schools? How does the state determine with “reasonable suspicion” home schooling is failing due to “intellectual neglect”? If you’re going to force this, then why not force kids into private schools where public schools fail? It’s exactly the same premise. (not that I support it, just pointing out your duplicity).

Again, the educational stuff is crap and does not belong in a constitution. Its bad enough when crap like that is made law

1 Like