Ballot Title
The constitutional amendment repealing the requirement that state officers elected by voters statewide reside in the state capital.
Helpful Links
- Ballotpedia
- Page 23 of the "Analyses of Proposed Constitutional Amendments" by the Texas Legislative Council
- Page 10 of the 2015 ballot "focus report" by the Texas House of Representatives
- Page 2 of progresstexas.org's ballot guide (for a progressive perspective)
- Page 4 of the Texas Libertarian 2015 Voter Guide (for a libertarian perspective)
What does this do?
Currently, all state-wide elected officials must live in Austin. Not even a suburb of Austin is OK. This repeals that requirement for some positions: the Agriculture Commissioner, Land Commissioner, Comptroller, Attorney General, and Railroad Commissioner.
Why would this be good?
Because current requirements were passed when people had to come to work by horse, whereas today you can drive in each day from the suburbs and easily communicate with people remotely. Unnecessary requirements for a job reduce the number of people who want to have that job, which can prevent you from getting someone who you would want. It's also just nice to not force a person to do something that may be a great cost to them, unless you have a particularly good reason. It's also worth noting the most states don't require their officials in these positions to live in the capital.
Why would this be bad?
A lot of the reasons to oppose this seemed pretty meaningless (people like to be old-fashioned), but here are the potential problems that give me pause:
- It's good for everyone to be working in the same place, so staff and voters have easier access. However, maybe everyone will still work in the place - plenty of people physically work in a city different from the one they live in. One alternative suggestion was to allow living within a 50-mile radius of Austin rather than just saying "you don't have to live in Austin." Maybe that'd be better, but it's not the choice we're voting on. I also just don't know, for the positions affected, how important it even is to be in the same place as everyone else most work days.
- It could help politicians get away with corruption. If they get tried for some crime, they'll be prosecuted in their home county, which may be friendlier than in Austin. A progressive group stated this as a reason to vote no, citing that Travis County is more more Democratic than most of Texas, and Republican politicians would prefer to get tried in more Republican counties. However, you can see how this argument goes both ways. If a Republican county may go too easy on a Republican politician, so may a Democratic county rule too harshly on a Republican politician. And it's worth noting that this amendment had bipartisan support.
- This could cost more money if politicians live further from the capital, because of state-reimbursed travel. However, I did not see any data cited to give an idea of what kind of costs would be possible here.
Verdict
I plan on voting yes.
Basically, I should let people do what they want unless I have good reason not to. And I don't have a very good reason to force those few politicians to live in Austin. And if their new "freedom" here is taken too far, hopefully there will be another amendment to refine it, such as having a certain distance from Austin where the politicians must live. Either way, clearly the status quo on this, where they can't even live in an Austin suburb, is outdated.
What would it take to change my mind?
More data that suggests the potential downsides are more likely to be a bad problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment