Surname1

Name

Professor

Subject

Date

TEXAS CONSTITUTION

The State of Texas has a constitution which is a document describing the form, structure,

and aim of the U.S. Texas state government. The current constitution in Texas State came into

use in February 1896, serving as the seventh in the history of Texas inclusive of the Mexican

constitution. The constitution is among the longest in the U.S. The constitution, just like in other

states and countries, goes under various changes and amendments.

The Texas State constitution normally has its amendments proposed by the legislature but

these amendments are approved through voting in an election conducted statewide. The

amendments as proposed by the legislature are in the structure of joint resolutions rather than

bills. For the adoption of these amendments, a vote by two-thirds of the members in each house

is required [ CITATION Eri10 \l 1033 ].

The governor does not receive the joint resolutions for approval but instead, they are

directly filed with the state secretary. A constitution amendment as proposed by a joint resolution

comes into effect after it is approved by Texas voters in a general election. Since the

constitution’s effect into use back in 1896, there has been over 666 proposed amendments to the

constitution with 662 of these amendments being taken through voting. 484 out of the 662

amendments have been approved through the voting process with 179 failing to go through the
 Surname2

approval process. One of the amendments proposed was the residence of statewide officials

[ CITATION Tex15 \l 1033 ].

Article 4 section 23 of the constitution of Texas outlines the residence requirements of

state officials. It is under this article and section whereby, the General Land Office

commissioner, the public accounts comptroller and other statutory state officer elected by the

state are required to live in the capital of the state. The Texas governor, according to section 13,

is supposed to reside where the state’s sessions are held with an excluded case if he is authorized

or required to live elsewhere by the act of Legislature. The state officials affected were

Commissioner of the Lands, statutory State officers elected by Texas electorate, Public Accounts

Comptroller and the Attorney General. Others who were required to live in the state capital and

were equally affected by the joint proposition were Lieutenant Governor of Texas, the Governor

of Texas, Criminal Appeals Court of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas, and the Governor of Texas

State [ CITATION Bal15 \l 1033 ].

This proposed amendment came as proposition number 3 and was written by

Representative 25, Donna Campbell and Senator Kirk Watson who was representing District 14.

The proposal would push for the removal of the constitutional requirement which restricted the

state officials from residing elsewhere except the state capital of Austin. The joint resolution was

voted for with a 29-1 vote by the senate, with one vote against it by a Republican senator. The

resolution also passed the house with a 102-43 vote facing opposition by bi-partisan. However,

this amendment was the least popular compared to the other propositions brought forward and

was passed with a 66 percent support by voters [ CITATION Bal15 \l 1033 ].

Upon approval and once passed, residential restrictions would be remove allowing

elected state officials to reside anywhere outside the capital. This amendment, however, neither
 Surname3

covered the state governor nor the lieutenant governor. The elected state officials would have the

liberty and freedom to reside and live anywhere they were comfortable at within the state

[ CITATION LUQ15 \l 1033 ].

The joint amendment faced both support and opposition from key government officials as

well as the public. With the advanced infrastructure and technology, as put by supporters, the

requirement by the state constitution to reside in the capital was termed outdated. The

requirement to live in the capital would also hinder many Texans and their families from

contesting for such positions due to the high living costs in Austin. An argument that other states

did not require their elected officials to live in the capital was also put forward by the proposition

supporters [ CITATION Bal15 \l 1033 ].

Opponents, on the other hand, were mainly concerned with the performance of the

officials if allowed to live anywhere from Austin. Their main concern was that the state official

would perform poorly if they lived outside Austin and the huge expenses that would be incurred

to reimburse them due to traveling costs. Officials would also choose to be in a different

residential place in a bid to seek a more favorable court in the country making it a point of worry

by the critics [ CITATION Tex15 \l 1033 ].

Some of the people in support of the joint resolution were Representative Donna

Campbell, the author of the proposition. She argued that the requirement of having state officials

living in Austin would prompt people to sell their homes to cater for the high living standards in

the capital. She also argued that one would be separated from his children and family in general

if they could not manage to bring and catering for their family in Austin. This was termed as an

unfair burden [ CITATION Bal15 \l 1033 ].

 Surname4

The Texas Republican County Chairmen’s Association legislative director, Bill

Fairbrother, was in support of the proposition arguing on the basis of Austin being a Democratic

area and that the state officials should be allowed to live more likely in the places they were

elected since all were Republican. Senator Kirk Watson pointed on the infrastructural and

technological advancements saying that the requirement was put into effect since there were poor

transport and communication in the 19th century. With technological advancements, Kirk argued

the officials could engage in teleworking [ CITATION Bal15 \l 1033 ].

Officials, according to the House Research Organization, should be allowed to live in the

cities that surrounded Austin and commute to workplaces if they so wished. This would be

possible with infrastructural improvements and advances. The spouses and children were also a

concern in terms of school and work which would inconvenience residing in Austin. Local

residency would be a point of concern for the elected officials who previously worked for a

legislative district and feared to lose their local place of residence in case they decided seeking

an office obliging them to remain in certain districts [ CITATION Bal15 \l 1033 ][ CITATION

Tex15 \l 1033 ].

The amendment proposition also faced some opposition. Tom Craddick was in support of

the elected officials living within 50 miles of Austin and not necessarily anywhere. He argued

that living anywhere within the state would inconvenience them in getting to work and that

would adverse effects. Liberal Advocacy Organization Progress deputy director, Phillip Martin

opposed the amendment proposition saying that Austin is the capital of the state and the

convenience of the state officials should be considered least as to that of the Texas people

[ CITATION Bal15 \l 1033 ].

 Surname5

Rick Casey in an article emphasized on having all leaders in a common place as they

would be needed by their employees. The ease for the general public and the media keeping an

eye on the state officials was also a factor to consider in doing the amendments. The lifting of the

restrictions, according to Rick, would lead to high living costs in the state. Despite partially

supporting the amendment, the House Research Organization as well opposed it claiming that it

would change a requirement that well-served the Texans adding that it was necessary for the

state officials heading big agencies to be available in the workplaces daily. Furthermore, they

stated that the officials were well aware of the constitutional mandate as they seek the office and

should adhere to it. Teleworking, a privilege by the advanced technology would be inappropriate

for officials and physical presence would be the most preferred in handling important businesses

[ CITATION Bal15 \l 1033 ].

The amendment about the residence of elected state officials was a good idea. This

would allow the officials to exercise their freedom of choice. It would also help them avoid

inconveniences such as schooling for their children as well as working places for their spouses.

Separation and alienation from their families would be limited since one would choose if to live

with their family and where. Other inconveniences such as putting up with high living costs in

Austin would be checked allowing the officials to put up where it is more conducive and

economically convenient for them.

It would be the citizen’s mandate on 3rd of November to pass or oppose the joint

resolutions put forward by the legislature. Upon approval, the amendments would become part of

the law and the constitution of Texas. Among the seven proposition, proposition 3 on the

residential places for the state officials. Its ballot title was, the constitutional amendment

repealing the obligatory for elected state officials to live in the state capital. However, despite
 Surname6

least popularity, the amendment proposition was approved gaining a 66 percent with a total of

1,022,525 votes [ CITATION Bal15 \l 1033 ].

Works Cited

ADENIYI, LUQMAN. Texans Will Vote on 7 Constitutional Amendments on Nov. 3. media.

Austin: The Texas Tribune, 2015. report.

Ballotpedia. Texas State Capital Residency Repeal Amendment, Proposition 3 (2015). media.

austin : Ballotpedia, 2015. print.

Ericson, Joe E. and Ernest Wallace. CONSTITUTION OF 1876. 12 june 2010. Print. 05 may

2017.

Representatives, Texas House of. Amendments Proposed for November 2015 Ballot. focus.

Austin: HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, 2015. print.