Texas Account Balances in Budget Certification Amendment (2015)
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
 |
| This measure was not put on an election ballot |
The Texas Account Balances in Budget Certification Amendment was not on the November 3, 2015 ballot in Texas as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The measure, upon voter approval, would have prohibited the Texas Comptroller from considering unspent funds in dedicated accounts as available for other purposes in the Biennial Revenue Estimate.[1][2]
The measure was introduced into the Texas Legislature by Rep. Drew Darby (R-72) as House Joint Resolution 111.[3]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The proposed ballot title was:[1]
| “ | The constitutional amendment to end fee and other revenue diversions by prohibiting using certain money dedicated by law for nondedicated purposes or entities and to prohibit using that money to certify appropriations for nondedicated purposes or entities.[4] | ” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article 3 and Article 8, Texas Constitution
The proposed amendment would have added Subsections (b-1) and (b-2) to Section 49a of Article 3 and Section 5 to Article 8 of the Texas Constitution. The full text can be read below:[1]
| Amendment to Section 49a of Article 3 and Section 5 of Article 8 of the Texas Constitution | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 49a, Article III
(b-1) In making the determinations necessary for the Comptroller of Public Accounts to endorse the certificate under Subsection (b) of this section, the Comptroller may not consider any portion of any revenue of, or money received by, this state, or any account or fund balance, that by law has been dedicated to a particular purpose or entity as available for the purpose of certifying that the amount of appropriations for any other purpose or entity is within the amount estimated to be available in the affected funds. The Legislature may not by general law make an unappropriated balance of a dedicated account or fund available for general governmental purposes or certification except by expressly repealing the dedication. (b-2) In making the determinations necessary for the Comptroller of Public Accounts to make the biennial estimate of anticipated revenue under Subsection (a) of this section, the Comptroller may not consider any portion of any revenue of, or money received by, this state, or any account or fund balance, that by law has been dedicated to a particular purpose or entity as available for appropriation for any other purpose or entity. Section 5, Article VIII Revenue of, or money received by, this state from one or more particular sources or held in or deposited to an identified account or fund inside or outside the state treasury the appropriation or expenditure of which at the time the revenue is collected or the money is received by the state is dedicated by general law to one or more particular purposes or for one or more particular entities may not be appropriated or expended for any purpose, or to or by any entity, other than a purpose or entity to which the revenue or money is dedicated unless the legislature expressly repeals the dedication.[4] | |||||
Support
Supporters
Officials
The following officials sponsored the measure in the legislature:[5]
- Rep. Drew Darby (R-72)
- Rep. Drew Springer (R-68)
- Rep. Myra Crownover (R-64)
- Rep. David Simpson (R-7)
- Rep. James Frank (R-69)
- Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock (R-54)
- Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R-25)
- Rep. Greg Bonnen (R-24)
- Rep. Cindy Burkett (R-113)
- Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R-98)
- Rep. Travis Clardy (R-11)
- Rep. John Cyrier (R-17)
- Rep. Tony Dale (R-136)
- Rep. Pat Fallon (R-106)
- Rep. Rick Galindo (R-117)
- Rep. Craig Goldman (R-97)
- Rep. Larry Gonzales (R-52)
- Rep. Donna Howard (D-48)
- Rep. Jason Isaac (R-45)
- Rep. Phil King (R-61)
- Rep. Stephanie Klick (R-91)
- Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R-81)
- Rep. Lyle Larson (R-122)
- Rep. Marisa Marquez (D-77)
- Rep. Will Metcalf (R-16)
- Rep. Joe Moody (D-78)
- Rep. Geanie Morrison (R-30)
- Rep. Andrew Murr (R-53)
- Rep. Chris Paddie (R-9)
- Rep. Tan Parker (R-63)
- Rep. Dade Phelan (R-21)
- Rep. John Raney (R-14)
- Rep. Stuart Spitzer (R-4)
- Rep. Phil Stephenson (R-85)
- Rep. Jason Villalba (R-144)
- Rep. James White (R-19)
- Rep. Molly White (R-55)
- Rep. John Wray (R-10)
- Rep. Gene Wu (D-137)
Other officials endorsing the measure included:
Organizations
- Texas Association of Business[7]
- Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition
Arguments
Speaker of the House Joe Straus (R-121) wrote an op-ed in favor of the amendment, calling it "this session’s most meaningful and lasting effort to control government spending." He wrote:
| “ | This proposal would not only help keep spending in check, but it would bring needed transparency to the budget process. And it would do so by enshrining a fairly simple concept in our state Constitution: Legislators shouldn’t spend money that they don’t really have...
This proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution says that money sitting in GR-Dedicated accounts cannot be counted as available revenue when the Comptroller issues the Biennial Revenue Estimate. Without those accounts in the equation, we would be having an entirely different conversation – a more honest conversation – about how much money is available to spend on programs, on tax cuts and on everything else we’re talking about doing. Suddenly, the Legislature will have less to work with. And the Legislature will certainly have less to work with starting in 2021. That’s when HJR 111 would bar the state from using GR-Dedicated balances for budget certification at all... Plus, HJR 111 is the only approach that ends the budgeting practices that so many of us love to criticize. In HJR 111, the House has approved a solution that reinforces fiscal discipline and lets Texans know their money will be used as promised.[4] |
” |
| —Rep. Joe Straus[8] | ||
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Texas Constitution
The proposed constitutional amendment was filed by Rep. Drew Darby (R-72) as House Joint Resolution 111 on March 9, 2015.[3]
A two-thirds vote in both chambers of the Texas State Legislature was required to refer this amendment to the ballot. Texas is one of 16 states that require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both chambers. On April 27, 2015, the Texas House of Representatives unanimously approved HJR 111.[3] The measure was not approved by both chambers of the legislature.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Texas Legislature, "HJR No. 111," accessed May 1, 2015
- ↑ Texas Legislature, "HJR No. 111 Analysis," accessed May 1, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Texas Legislature, "HJR No. 111 History," accessed May 1, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedstraus - ↑ Texas Legislature, "HJR No. 111 Witnesses," accessed May 1, 2015
- ↑ KXAN, "Misuse of state funds targeted by House leadership," April 30, 2015
 |
State of Texas Austin (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
