TX: 2003 Referendum Special Election Result
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 12:26:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  TX: 2003 Referendum Special Election Result
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: TX: 2003 Referendum Special Election Result  (Read 1312 times)
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,210


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 23, 2007, 07:25:31 PM »

New Election: 2003 Texas Referendum Special Election Results
   
   

Hey, this was pretty close:

"The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation property owned by a religious organization that is leased for use as a school or that is owned with the intent of expanding or constructing a religious facility."
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2007, 10:44:09 PM »

"The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation property owned by a religious organization that is leased for use as a school or that is owned with the intent of expanding or constructing a religious facility."

huh
Logged
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,210


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2007, 10:56:05 PM »

I think it means "No property tax for land that churches loan to a school, and no property tax for land intended for religious facilities"
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2007, 10:57:54 PM »

I think it means "No property tax for land that churches loan to a school, and no property tax for land intended for religious facilities"

Why couldn't they just have worded it that way?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2007, 03:53:27 AM »
« Edited: February 24, 2007, 03:55:13 AM by jimrtex »

"The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation property owned by a religious organization that is leased for use as a school or that is owned with the intent of expanding or constructing a religious facility."
huh
In Texas, churches are not subject to ad valorem taxes.  But if they acquire land to build a church in the future, it is (was) taxed as if it were ordinary private property.  The amendment exempted property for a future expansion, if the property does not produce income.  The legislature may by law provide sanctions in case of abuse - my guess would be that if the church was trading in real estate.  This was covered by the amendment as introduced.

In addition, properties used by the owner for educational purposes are (were) exempt from ad valorem taxes.  But there may have been a question in the case of property that is owned by a religious society, but leased to a school.  The second part covers this case, and was added during the legislative process.  It wouldn't surprise me if that this wasn't particularly directed at cases where a school and church are separate legal entities, even when closely related.

The closeness may simply reflect general opposition to exemptions for any purpose.
Logged
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,210


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2007, 01:44:42 PM »

So the West Texas opposition was an opposition to tax exemptions, or a reflection of old loyalties to the Democratic party?

There's an overlapping of the opposition in that part of West Texas and the support for Clinton in 1996.

Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2007, 02:51:52 PM »

The religious in the border counties sure liked this proposition.

I think I voted against this one, because the wording was plainly godawful and I tend to vote against propositions I have to read over three or four times in order to understand
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2007, 03:54:21 PM »

There's an overlapping of the opposition in that part of West Texas and the support for Clinton in 1996.
There's also an overlap between those two things and the part of West Texas that is entirely uninhabited rather than just uninhabited.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2007, 12:19:20 AM »

So the West Texas opposition was an opposition to tax exemptions, or a reflection of old loyalties to the Democratic party?
I'm not sure.  There are regional trends but they don't always follow the regional trends found in political elections.

You have the No vote area along I-35, but this included both Travis County, and Comal and Kendall counties that are among the most Republican in the state.  There have been a dispute in Boerne, county seat of Kendall County, about expansion of a Catholic church that had gone to the US Supreme Court.

CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, et al.
No. 95-2074.


So perhaps there was some negative feeling towards churches from that. 

In other areas, churches might have encouraged their members to vote, especially if they had some expansion plans.  There is a large church in Houston, 2nd Baptist, that has 5 or 6 separate campuses all around the city, most fairly new.  If they had been getting hit for real estate taxes on their vacant land, they might pushed for the change in the first place.

And there might have been some negative impact from the redistricting special sessions.  The first two were before the election, and the 3rd began a few days after the election.

In other places, there might have been carry over from the other propositions, especially #12, which limited non-economic damages (pain and suffering), and was the one that got all the attention.  How do the votes on #12 match this one?

There were 22 amendments on the ballot at a special election, so many voters probably weren't familiar with most of the amendments.  I remember waiting in line with a bunch of firefighters who were there to vote for an amendment that would let fire departments donated used equipment to volunteer fire departments; and were going through the amendments on the list trying to figure out what they meant.

BTW, here is the section of the Texas Constitution that was amended.  The part that is underlined was added.  So there really wasn't anything groundbreaking, but just clarifying existing language.  It passed the House on a 124:5 vote, and the Senate on a 31:0 vote.

   (a)  All occupation taxes shall be equal and uniform upon the
same class of subjects within the limits of the authority levying
the tax; but the legislature may, by general laws, exempt from
taxation public property used for public purposes; actual places of
religious worship, also any property owned by a church or by a
strictly religious society for the exclusive use as a dwelling
place for the ministry of such church or religious society, and
which yields no revenue whatever to such church or religious
society; provided that such exemption shall not extend to more
property than is reasonably necessary for a dwelling place and in no
event more than one acre of land; any property owned by a church or
by a strictly religious society that owns an actual place of
religious worship if the property is owned for the purpose of
expansion of the place of religious worship or construction of a new
place of religious worship and the property yields no revenue
whatever to the church or religious society, provided that the
legislature by general law may provide eligibility limitations for
the exemption and may impose sanctions related to the exemption in
furtherance of the taxation policy of this subsection; any property
that is owned by a church or by a strictly religious society and is
leased by that church or strictly religious society to a person for
use as a school, as defined by Section 11.21, Tax Code, or a
successor statute, for educational purposes;
places of burial not
held for private or corporate profit; solar or wind-powered energy
devices; all buildings used exclusively and owned by persons or
associations of persons for school purposes and the necessary
furniture of all schools and property used exclusively and
reasonably necessary in conducting any association engaged in
promoting the religious, educational and physical development of
boys, girls, young men or young women operating under a State or
National organization of like character; also the endowment funds
of such institutions of learning and religion not used with a view
to profit; and when the same are invested in bonds or mortgages, or
in land or other property which has been and shall hereafter be
bought in by such institutions under foreclosure sales made to
satisfy or protect such bonds or mortgages, that such exemption of
such land and property shall continue only for two years after the
purchase of the same at such sale by such institutions and no
longer, and institutions engaged primarily in public charitable
functions, which may conduct auxiliary activities to support those
charitable functions; and all laws exempting property from taxation
other than the property mentioned in this Section shall be null and
void.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 11 queries.