2017 Special Session Legislator's Guide
2017 Special Session Legislator's Guide
2017 Special Session Legislator's Guide
2017-18
T E X A S P U B L I C P O L I C Y F O U N D AT I O N
T O T H E I S S U E S
About the Texas Public Policy Foundation
The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan
research institute. The Foundations mission is to promote and defend
liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the
nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public
policy debate with academically sound research and outreach.
On July 18,
On July 18, Gov. Greg Abbott will call the 85th Texas Legislature
into special session to address 20 issues. These 30 days present a historic opportunity
for the Legislature to promote liberty and economic opportunity for Texans. Given the
breadth of the Foundations research on these topics, our policy experts have quickly
compiled this 2017-18 Legislators Guide to the Issues Special Session Edition.
We organized this edition around what we consider the three main themes of the
special session:
Empowering Texas Families begins with improving the quality of our childrens
education. Given the problems that many public school districts have had providing
appropriate education to students with special needs, the Legislature should provide
these families with Education Savings Accounts that allow parents to customize their
childrens educational services. To benefit the overwhelming majority of Texas children
enrolled in public schools, the Legislature should revamp existing spending practices to
improve teacher pay, strengthen teacher quality through reformed hiring and reten-
tion policies, and begin the process of scrapping the antiquated and convoluted school
finance formulas in favor of a new model that is student-centered, transparent, and
affordable for a 21st century Texas.
Defending Local Liberty begins with understanding that the purpose of govern-
ment is to protect liberty. While the 85th Texas Legislature took positive steps during
the regular session, much more needs to be done to enable Texans to challenge the
growth of property taxes and local spending, to establish their right to not be annexed
by a municipality without an affirmative vote of those affected, and to curb municipal
abuses of permitting processes, development rules, and the management of trees.
Promoting Statewide Reform begins with curbing the excessive growth of gov-
ernment. The most important measure the Legislature can take is to tighten the state
spending limit so that state government grows no faster than population plus inflation.
The Legislature should also end government collection of union dues, and improve
election integrity through measures that reduce opportunities for mail ballot fraud.
As with previous editions of our Legislators Guide, each entry provides a quick
reference on the topic, as well as additional research resources.
We hope this Legislators Guide is useful in informing the policy decisions you will
make during this special session. The Foundation team stands ready to assist you in
achieving all of these important objectives and making Texas beacon of liberty shine
even brighter for generations to come.
3
Table of Contents
EMPOWERING TEXAS FAMILIES.................................................................... 5
Paycheck Protection........................................................................................31
Our Experts.........................................................................................................35
Empowering Texas
Families
Funding Public Schools for the 21st Century.................... 6
5
Funding Public Schools for the 21st Century
The Issue
7
www.TexasPolicy.com
Teacher Pay and Administrative Flexibility
The Issue
9
www.TexasPolicy.com
Educational Choice for Students with
Special Needs
The Issue
A majority of states have some form of private school choice. Texas has none.
Every Texas child should be afforded the opportunity to select the education-
al options that best suit his or her individual needs. Children with special needs
are a particularly vulnerable group in need of expanded, individualized options
that will allow them a customized education designed to meet their unique needs.
Half the nations state legislatures have established educational choice programs.
ESAs have been established by legislatures in Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, Missis-
sippi, and Florida. Arizonas program is the leading model currently in operation
because of its near-universal availability. Arizona students are eligible for the pro-
gram if they have been enrolled in public schools for at least 100 days of the prior
fiscal year and must be a member of a limited number of populations, among
them children with an active IEP or Section 504 plan. Over the next four school
years, all Arizona students will become eligible as long as they meet the 100-day
requirement. Arizona has had an ESA program since 2011, and parents have
taken full advantage of the programs flexibility. About one-third of ESA funds are
expended on multiple items; in other words, a sizable number of parents choose
not to use the entire ESA on tuition.
11
www.TexasPolicy.com
Choice for Students with Special Needs cont'd
A 2010 study by the Federal Department of Education found that the school
choice program in Washington, D.C. had no impact on student test scores,
but increased high school graduation rates from 70 percent to 82 percent.
The financial impact to a childs school district of the student using an ESA
would be more favorable than the impact if a child moved to another district,
as many special needs families already do in search of better options.
ESA Parent Handbook by the Nevada State Treasurer (Jan. 2016). This work
explains the Nevada ESA in detail.
Texas School Finance: Basics and Reform by Michael Barba, Kent Grusendorf,
Vance Ginn, and Talmadge Heflin, Texas Public Policy Foundation (Mar.
2016).
Children in Need: Special Needs Students in Texas Would Benefit From Education
Savings Accounts by Emily Sass and Stephanie Matthews, Texas Public Policy
Foundation (May 2017).
continued
13
www.TexasPolicy.com
Choice for Students with Special Needs cont'd
How School Choice Affects the Achievement of Public School Students by Caroline
Hoxby, Hoover Institution Press (2002).
School Choice and Climate Survey, Grand Prairie ISD (Dec. 2014).
The Moral Case for School Choice by Michael Barba and Kent Grusendorf, Texas
Public Policy Foundation (Sep. 2014).
Exploring Texass Private Education Sector by Andrew Catt, EdChoice (Jan. 2017).
15
Property Tax Rollback Trigger
The Issue
The Facts
In fiscal 2015, more than 4,100 local governments levied $52.2 billion in
property taxes on Texas homeowners and businesses. That translates into a
burden of nearly $8,000 for a family of four.
From 2000 to 2015, Texas property tax grew by 132 percent. Population
and inflation increased just 82 percent over the same period.
According to a poll conducted by the University of Texas and the Texas
Tribune of 1,200 registered voters over June 2 to June 11, 2017, 77 percent
of Texans support a move by the Legislature to limit how fast property
taxes can grow.
Recommendation
Require voter approval for property tax rates that result in property tax revenue
increases of more than 4 percent or population growth plus inflation, whichever
is less.
Resources
Time for a Property Tax Trigger by Bryan Mathew and James Quintero, Texas
Public Policy Foundation (March 2017).
The Freedom to Own Property: Reforming Texas Local Property Tax by Vance
Ginn, Kathleen Hunker, and James Quintero, Texas Public Policy Foundation
(Oct. 2015).
17
www.TexasPolicy.com
Local Spending Limit
The Issue
Recommendations
Texas constitutional spending limit should be expanded to include expendi-
tures made by all political subdivisions of the state.
The spending limit should be based on the growth rate of state population
plus inflation, total state personal income, or total gross state product, which-
ever is less.
The growth rate used for the local spending limit should be calculated from
the 12 most recent months for which data is available immediately preceding
the adoption of a budget by a local government.
Resources
The Real Texas Budget: Why Texas Needs to Ratchet Down Spending Growth by
Vance Ginn, Talmadge Heflin, and Bill Peacock, Texas Public Policy Founda-
tion (June 2016).
Local government should follow states lean budget lead by James Quintero,
Austin American-Statesman (Aug. 4, 2015).
19
www.TexasPolicy.com
Property Rights and the Local Government
Permitting Process
The Issue
But it is not just changing the rules in the middle of the game that makes housing
and other projects more expensive. The number of onerous regulations, repeated
checks, and unnecessary reviews that businesses have to pass for permits gener-
ally causes a huge delay within the approval process. In Austin, for instance, regu-
latory delay adds on average 3.5 months to the process, compared to just three
weeks of regulatory delay in Denver, Colorado, or less than a week in Raleigh,
North Carolina, suggesting that Austin is dragging its feet in the approval of site
plans.
In Harris County, the approval process for business permits can cause delays to
opening for up to six months while trying to comply with unnecessary provisions.
In one instance, an individual rented a space to make and bottle fresh juices, but
was forced to have equipment and amenities completely unrelated to their busi-
ness, such as grease taps and vent hoods. This caused almost a two-month delay
to opening. The effects of these regulations are not localized; they have far-reach-
ing effects on the lives of all individuals across the state. The tedious permitting
process adds considerable time and costs to many sectors of the economy; it hin-
ders construction projects and imposes undue burdens upon entrepreneurs and
companies. This results in delays, higher construction costs, higher housing costs,
and higher prices paid by consumers, fewer jobs, and less economic growth.
This difficult permitting process infringes upon basic private property rights by
imposing costs on the applicant. These costs are then transferred directly onto
consumers as seen with the housing market. For example, Austin recently has had
a large influx of new residents, and because of regulatory delays, rental costs rose
more rapidly than wages. The types of codes and regulations that businesses have
to meet often dont have anything to do with the production of their product and
force them to meet arbitrary and expensive standards. If Texas seeks to continue
One reason cities can add these costs with impunity is because they are not sub-
ject to the Texas Real Private Property Rights Preservation Act (RPPRPA). Passed
into law by the Legislature in 1995, RPPRPA allows property owners to receive
compensation for loss of property value due to new regulations on land use. Its
authors sought a method of protection and a deterrent against local government
regulations that would damage the value of someones property. Since the act
exempts municipalities, none of the cities zoning and permitting regulations are
subject to RPPRPA, rendering the act essentially ineffective.
The Facts
Meeting unnecessary criteria for the permitting process causes large delays of
up to 6 months for businesses in certain municipalities.
A report done in 2015 found that in Austin regulatory delay adds an average
of 3.5 months to the already 4 month long approval process.
The Texas Real Private Property Rights Preservation Act should be amended
to apply to municipal actions relating to the permitting process.
Resources
Heres what business owners have to say about city, county permitting processes
by Danica Smithwick, Community Impact Newspaper (May 19, 2017).
continued
21
www.TexasPolicy.com
Property Rights contd
Affordable Housing Starts with Private Property Rights by Kathleen Hunker, Texas
Public Policy Foundation (Nov. 2015).
Time to Defend Our Property Rights by Bryan Mathew, Texas Public Policy Foun-
dation (April 2017).
Building a More Affordable Texas by Kathleen Hunker, Texas Public Policy Foun-
dation (Jan. 2016).
23
www.TexasPolicy.com
Tree-Cutting Ordinances contd
It is generally recognized that private property rights include ownership of
the natural resources contained within the land. As John Locke states in the
Second Treatise of Civil Government: As much land as a man tills, plants,
improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property.
Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution states No persons property
shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without
adequate compensation being made.
Recommendations
To better protect landowners and strengthen private property rights, the Texas
Legislature should prohibit local governments from preventing the trimming or
removal of trees or timber located on a landowners property.
Resources
Austin Tree Ordinance Violates Private Property Rights by Rob Henneke and
James Quintero, Austin American-Statesman (March 25, 2017).
Local Over-regulation: Tree-cutting Ordinances by James Quintero, Texas Public
Policy Foundation (May 2017).
T exas is one of the few remaining states that allows forced annexation, a prac-
tice permitting home-rule cities to unilaterally expand their boundaries and
capture property owners living on the outskirts. Texans forcibly annexed by a city
are subject to higher taxes, tougher regulations, and a lot more debt, whether they
like it or not.
Municipal annexation power dates back to the 1912 Home Rule Amendment to
the Texas Constitution. In response to a nationwide debate about citizens rights
to local self-governance, Texans enshrined the concept into the states forma-
tional document. Home-rule cities are thus defined by what they cannot do; such
municipalities have the authority to exercise any power that is given them by the
people and not prohibited by the Constitution or laws of the state.
Since no limit on annexation was expressly stated in the 1912 amendment, cities
wielded virtually unlimited authority to annex property. However, after watching
cities abuse the annexation power throughout the early 20th century, the Legisla-
ture began to enact reforms.
In the 1960s for example, a land battle between Houston and Friendswood
prompted the Legislature to pass the Municipal Annexation Act of 1963. The act
limits cities expansion to a confined buffer zone around the municipality known
as the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).
Similarly, in 1989, the Legislature created a requirement that cities prepare a
municipal annexation plan to extend services to newly annexed areas within four
and a half years after annexation.
Finally, the mother of all annexation battles occurred in 1996. Houston decided
to quickly and unilaterally take control of the wealthy, politically active Kingwood
community while ignoring the areas vocal protestations. Less than a month later,
Kingwood residents found their way to the Capitol, and the Texas Legislature
enacted heightened requirements for municipal annexation plans, public hearing
timelines, and notice requirements.
These annexation reforms made a significant difference in limiting some of the
more dangerous parts of annexation authority generally, but do not go far enough
in addressing the fundamental flaws inherent in the system, such as the involun-
tary nature of the process.
To overcome these flaws and better protect Texans property rights, the Legis-
lature should reform the system to allow affected property owners a chance to
participate in the process through a popular election.
In fact, such a reform nearly passed during the 85th Texas Legislatures regu-
lar session. The new changes would have required cities to gain the consent of
residents and property owners in the targeted area by petition or vote before an-
nexation. Unfortunately, due to procedural obstructions, this reform effort failed
to reach the governors desk.
continued
25
www.TexasPolicy.com
Forced Annexation contd
The Facts
America was founded on the idea that citizens cannot be deprived of their
liberty without representation and due process. The injustice of taxation
without representation is not rectified by giving a citizen the right to vote
after the government has already taken his or her money.
Citizens who prefer a smaller government and fewer central services live
outside the city limits for a reason. Forcing citizens to become part of a city
denies them the ability to vote with their feet.
Cities view annexation as a way to expand their tax base and capture ad-
ditional revenue, whether or not such annexation increases efficiencies.
Wealthier suburbs are thus favored for annexation, although poorer areas
outside of the city limits can oftentimes benefit more from municipal an-
nexation since these communities frequently lack sufficient services.
Cities often underestimate how much it will cost to expand their services to
annexed areas, resulting in a dilution of services. Researchers Mary Edwards
and Yu Xiao reported in the Urban Affairs Review that cities are typically
required to take out debt and issue bonds to finance the costs of annexa-
tion. The San Antonio Police Officers Association vocalized this concern in
opposition to the citys 2015 annexation plan, with the president of the union
stating, I think its [annexation] a horrible idea. Were barely covering what
weve got right now.
Forced annexation means that those annexed have a new government forced
upon them by city officials they did not elect, to pay off debt they did not run
up, and to finance services they do not want.
Recommendations
Require a vote of affected residents and property owners prior to a municipal
annexation. If the vote does not pass, the city should not be permitted to
annex the area.
Review the disannexation process to ensure that previously annexed citizens
can enforce municipal promises to extend services to annexed areas, without
the necessary involvement and approval of the Texas attorney general.
Stop cities from wrongfully extending their extraterritorial jurisdiction
through impermissible interpretations of their development agreements.
Resources
Ending Forced Annexation in Texas by Jess Fields and James Quintero, Texas Pub-
lic Policy Foundation (July 2015).
Mythbusters: Annexation by Allegra Hill, Texas Public Policy Foundation (May
2016).
Ending Forced Annexation by James Quintero, Texas Public Policy Foundation
(March 2017).
Paycheck Protection................................................ 31
27
Adopt a Conservative State Spending Limit
The Issue
T exas has done better economically and fiscally than most states during the
past fifteen years. However, one area that still needs improvement is consis-
tently controlling the states budget growth. Since all government spending must
ultimately be paid for by taxation, limiting budget increases is essential for a
competitive economy that supports prosperity.
Since the 2004-05 state budget, the 2016-17 initially appropriated budget of
$209.1 billion was up 68.5 percent compared with only a 51 percent compounded
increase in the key metric of population growth plus inflation in this period.
Adjusting the total budget for this key metric shows that total budget growth is
up 11.8 percent above the pace of compounded population growth plus infla-
tion since the 2004-05 budget. This excessive increase has burdened Texans with
higher taxes and fees to sustain elevated spending levels and slowed economic
growth.
Not covering most of the budget. In Article VIII, Section 22(a) of the Texas
Constitution, the only appropriations subject to the spending limit are those
derived from state tax revenues not dedicated by this constitution, which
is about 45 percent of the 2016-17 total budget. By capping less than half of
the budget, a majority of the budget can grow unabated while legislators have
perverse incentives to dedicate funds and resort to accounting gimmicks.
Not providing a reliable indicator for the budgets growth rate. The Texas
Constitution requires that the limit be based on the growth in the states
economy, which is statutorily identified as personal income growth. Re-
search finds that this measures instability leads to costly fiscal volatility and
uncertainty.
Notes: Budget data are the latest spending measures from 2004-05 to 2014-15 and appropriations for
2016-17. Adjusted budget estimates are calculated based on the Foundations reformed spending limit.
Fortunately, the 2016-17 budget and 2018-19 budget meet the needs of Texans
while potentially achieving the historic milestone of two consecutive state budgets
held below population growth plus inflation. Given these valuable steps, now is
the time during the special session to strengthen the states weak spending limit.
The Facts
Texas total state budget growth is up an estimated 11.8 percent above the
pace of compounded population growth plus inflation since the 2004-05
budget.
The Texas Senate passed SB 9 (85-R) that covered more than half of the bud-
get, based growth rate on population growth and inflation, and computed
the growth rate with past and projected data.
continued
29
www.TexasPolicy.com
State Spending Limit contd
Recommendations
Pass a conservative state spending limit that makes the following changes,
where applicable, to Article VIII, Section 22(a) of the Texas Constitution and
to Section 316 of the Government Code, as in SB 943 (85-R):
Apply the limit to Texas total government budget;
Base the limit on the lowest growth rate of the Census Bureaus measure
of state population plus the Bureau of Labor Statistics measure of infla-
tion for the consumer price index for all items, the Bureau of Economic
Analysis measure of total state personal income, or the Bureau of
Economic Analysis measure of total gross state product for the two
fiscal years immediately preceding a regular legislative session when the
budget is adopted; and
Change Article VIII, Section 22(a), such that a supermajority vote of two-
thirds in each chamber instead of a simple majority is required to exceed the
spending limit.
Resources
SB 9: Strengthening Texas Appropriations Limit by Vance Ginn, Texas Public
Policy Foundation (March 2017).
Real Texas Budget Shows the Need for Conservative Spending Limit by Vance
Ginn and Melissa Schlosberg, Texas Public Policy Foundation (June 16, 2016).
TEL It Like It Is: Why Texas Needs Spending Limit Reform by Talmadge Heflin and
Vance Ginn, Texas Public Policy Foundation (Dec. 2015).
A Labor Market Comparison: Why the Texas Model Supports Prosperity by Vance
Ginn, Texas Public Policy Foundation (Oct. 2015).
The Facts
Texas government unionization rate is roughly 20 percent.
Currently the state of Texas collects dues on behalf of public sector unions.
Recommendation
Prohibit government deduction of union dues from public workers paychecks.
Resources
State LaborManagement Policy and the Texas Model by Stanley Greer, Texas
Public Policy Foundation (Feb. 2015).
The Texas Miracle and Labor Policy by Bill Peacock, Texas Public Policy Founda-
tion (April 2015).
31
www.TexasPolicy.com
Cracking Down on Mail-in Ballot Fraud
The Issue
M ail-in ballot fraud is the tool of choice for those who are engaging in elec-
tion fraud.
Once rare and only used when voters knew they were going to be out of town
on Election Day, mail-in ballots have become commonplace in Texas and
around the nation. The advent of early voting has largely addressed the origi-
nating rationale for mail-in ballots. Instead, mail-in ballots are now mostly used
for convenience or by people who, due to illness, injury, or disability, find trav-
eling to the polls to be arduous. In Texas, mail-in ballots bypass the states voter
ID law. Mail-in ballots are vulnerable to electoral fraud when voters, especially
the aged and the disabled, are encouraged by paid political operatives to apply
for a mail-in ballot and then assisted in filling out the ballot and handing it
over to the operative for delivery.
Seniors or disabled voters living in their own homes may find it difficult to
make it to the polls, whether during early voting or on Election Day. Thus,
these voters turn to mail-in ballots. Voter ID is not required before voting from
home. Ballot harvesters, otherwise known as politiqueras, exploit the proven
vulnerabilities of mail-in balloting by approaching seniors to sign up, helping
them fill in their ballot, and then carrying the ballot to the mail. This mode of
fraud appears to be particularly hard to address. The fact is a formal polling fa-
cility is the only place where the sanctity of the secret ballot free from coercion
can be monitored.
House Bill 658, signed into law in 2017, closes one avenue of mail-in ballot
fraud while simultaneously making it easier for voters in nursing homes to par-
ticipate in elections by allowing residential care facilities with five or more vot-
ers to become early voting centers. Some 3,000 assisted living facilities statewide
might benefit. However, assisted living centers include memory care facilities, a
class of facility that is growing rapidly, where the residents have compromised
mental capabilities. Memory care facilities do not yet appear to be a large source
of ballot fraud. Research by the Foundation examined voter registration and
voting records of 40 facilities that exclusively provide memory care in Texas and
found only 19 registered voters at 11 facilities having cast five votes of which
three were mail-in ballots in the 2016 general election.
To preserve the integrity of the vote, Texas Election Code restricts candidates,
bystanders, sound trucks, election-related badges, and other activities from
polling places. Further, it is unlawful to influence voters at the polls. In addition,
the Election Code specifies that election judges must be affiliated or aligned
with different political parties. Yet voters, often elderly or disabled, receive no
such protections when voting by mail. With the use of mail-in ballots growing,
why arent these votes given the same protections as votes at the precinct poll-
ing place? The practice of employing mail-in ballot harvesters, or politiqueras,
needs to be ended. Election law prohibits a polling place staffed by paid agents
of one candidate or one political party, yet, ballot harvesters are functionally the
same in many key respects as election judges.
continued
33
www.TexasPolicy.com
Mail-in Ballot Fraud contd
Texas may expand ballot access for elderly and voters with disabilities, by Jim
Malewitz, Texas Tribune (June 2, 2017).
Demand for mail-in ballots in Texas is growing, as are the risks, by Anna M.
Tinsley, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (July 9, 2012).
Election Code. Title 3. Chapter 32. Subchapter A. Appointment of Election
Judges.
www.TexasPolicy.com 35
The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit, non-
partisan research institute.
The Foundations mission is to promote and defend liberty,
personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the
nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas
public policy debate with academically
sound research and outreach.
Funded by thousands of individuals, foundations, and
corporations, the Foundation does not accept government
funds or contributions to influence the
outcomes of its research.
The public is demanding a different direction for their
government, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation is
providing the ideas that enable policymakers
to chart that new course.