In Texas, legislatively referred amendments are the only form of statewide direct democracy available. The legislature has substantial control over how proposed amendments are submitted to voters. For instance, the legislature may call a special election and may supply the ballot language. The Secretary of State, with the approval of the Attorney General, prepares a statement to explain the nature of the proposed amendment that is published in newspapers. Judicial review of proposed amendments has historically been limited, but may be available if, for instance, the ballot proposition is missing a core feature of the amendment.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
What forms of direct democracy are available, and when?
Statewide Ballot Measures in Texas
Texas does not have statewide initiatives or veto referendums but has legislatively referred amendments.
X Initiatives – Statutory
X Initiatives – Constitutional
X Veto Referendums
√ Legislatively Referred Amendments
An amendment to the state constitution proposed by the legislature must be approved by Texas voters. Tex. Const. art. XVII, § 1(a).
Election Timing
A proposed amendment is submitted to voters after it is approved by a 2/3 vote of all members elected to each house of the legislature. “The date of the elections shall be specified by the legislature.” Tex. Const. art. XVII, § 1(a). See also Tex. Elec. Code § 41.001(a) (requiring uniform election dates for general or special elections).
BALLOT PREPARATION
What is included on the ballot, and who prepares it?
The ballot for a proposed amendment must contain the following.
- Ballot statement or “proposition”, in the form of a single statement. Elec. Code § 52.072.
- (If applicable) Tax-related information. sub. (e).
- If the proposal involves imposing or reducing a tax, either:
- Amount of maximum tax rate for which approval is sought.
- Amount of rate reduction or tax rate for which approval is sought.
- If the proposal involves imposing or reducing a tax, either:
The ballot language is generally prescribed by the legislature, but if the legislature fails to do so, the Secretary of State “must describe the proposed amendment in terms that clearly express its scope and character.” See Tex. Elec. Code §§ 52.072, 274.001(a)-(b), 274.003. Texas statutes also require the Secretary of State to include appropriate ballot translation language, as required under federal law. See Tex. Elec. Code § 274.003(c).
INFORMATION TO VOTERS
What information is provided to voters before the election, and how?
Publication
The Secretary of State must publish notice twice in each newspaper required to publish official notices: first 50-60 days before the election, then again on the same day of the following week. Notice must include the election date and:
- Brief explanatory statement of the nature of the proposed amendment, prepared by the Secretary of State and approved by the Attorney General.
- Ballot proposition language.
Tex. Const. art. XVII, § 1(b); Tex. Elec. Code §§ 274.022–274.023.
Additionally, the Governor’s proclamation ordering the election must include the ballot proposition language. Tex. Elec. Code § 274.001(c).
The Secretary of State must also send the text of each proposed amendment to county clerks, who must post a full and complete copy in a public place at least 30 days prior to the election. Tex. Const. art. XVII, § 1(b).
Voter Information Pamphlet
Texas law does not require a formal state voter information pamphlet for ballot measures. However, as noted above, a brief explanatory statement of the nature of the proposed amendment, prepared by the Secretary of State and approved by the Attorney General, is published in newspapers.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
When and how can the court step in?
Any question relating to the “validity or outcome of a constitutional amendment election may be raised in an election contest”, which is the “exclusive method for adjudicating such questions.” Any such contest must be filed before the final canvass of election results is completed. Tex. Elec. Code § 233.014(g).
Sample case: Dacus v. Parker, 466 S.W.3d 820, 826 (Tex. 2015) (invalidating an amendment to a city charter, where ballot language failed to inform voters of “chief feature” of measure). While Dacus involved a proposed amendment to a city charter, its analysis called into question prior case law indicating that a ballot must only allow voters to identify and distinguish different proposed constitutional amendments from one another.