Texas Proposition 1, Allowed to Serve as Multiple Municipal Judges Amendment (2019)

Texas Proposition 1
Election date November 5, 2019
Topic County and municipal governance
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Texas measuresTexas Proposition 1Texas Proposition 2Texas Proposition 3Texas Proposition 4Texas Proposition 5Texas Proposition 6Texas Proposition 7Texas Proposition 8Texas Proposition 9Texas Proposition 10Submit

Texas Proposition 1, the Allowed to Serve as Multiple Municipal Judges Amendment, was on the ballot in Texas as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2019. The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this amendment to allow persons to hold more than one office as an elected or appointed municipal judge in more than one municipality at the same time.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment, thereby allowing a person to hold more than one office as an appointed, but not an elected, municipal judge in more than one municipality at the same time.

Election results

Texas Proposition 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		685,827	34.56%
No		1,298,866	65.44%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Proposition 1 have changed?

As of 2019, a person in Texas could serve in more than one municipal judge position, assuming the person was appointed to each of those positions. Some municipalities provided for appointed municipal judges, while other municipalities provided for elected municipal judges in their charters. Due to an amendment passed in 1972, the Texas Constitution allowed non-elected state officers to hold other non-elected offices should the concurrent service be considered beneficial to the state. In 1997, the state government enacted a statute providing that appointed municipal judges could serve in the office of municipal judge for multiple municipalities. As the Texas Constitution restricted elected officers from holding other elected offices, municipal judges for local governments that require elections for the position could not serve in multiple municipalities.

Proposition 1 would have allowed persons to hold more than one office as an elected or appointed municipal judge for multiple municipalities at the same time.

How was Proposition 1 placed on the ballot?

Rep. James White (R-19) authored Proposition 1, which was introduced during the 2019 legislative session. The constitutional amendment received the unanimous support of (present) Democrats and Republicans in the Texas State Legislature, making the amendment one of three passed in 2019 that received no opposition from legislators. The other two constitutional amendments to receive no legislative opposition were the Flood Infrastructure Fund Amendment and the Transfer of Care of Law Enforcement Animals Amendment.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

The constitutional amendment permitting a person to hold more than one office as a municipal judge at the same time.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 16, Texas Constitution

The measure would have added a Subsection (e) to Section 40 of Article 16 of the Texas Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:

(e) Notwithstanding Subsections (a) and (c) of this section, a person may hold more than one office as an elected or appointed municipal judge in more than one municipality at the same time.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2019

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 12, and the FRE is 47. The word count for the ballot title is 20, and the estimated reading time is 5 seconds. In 2017, the average FKGL score of Texas ballot titles was 25.

Support

Rep. James White (R-19) sponsored the constitutional amendment in the state legislature.

Arguments

• The Texas House Research Organization (HRO) provided the following argument in support of the constitutional amendment. The HRO also reported that no opposition concerns were identified.

“

[The constitutional amendment] would make it easier for smaller municipalities to have qualified municipal judges by allowing a person to be elected as a municipal judge in more than one municipality at the same time. Municipal judges play an important role in the state's court system. However, many smaller municipalities do not have municipal judges or even attorneys qualified to serve as municipal judges. This lack of qualified municipal judges impedes the ability of smaller municipalities to deal with cases such as ordinance violations, domestic cases, and misdemeanor offenses, and could impact public safety by making it more difficult to obtain such things as blood search warrants. Texas law already permits a person to be appointed as a municipal judge in more than one municipality at the same time. [The constitutional amendment] merely would extend this treatment to allow a person to be elected as a municipal judge in more than one municipality. This would make it easier for smaller municipalities to fill these judgeships with qualified members of their communities.

”

• The League of Women Voters of Texas published arguments for and arguments against the ballot measure. The following is the argument in support:

“

A municipal judge oversees essential local proceedings, such as pretrial hearings, small claims proceedings, and misdemeanor cases. Often smaller municipalities do not have municipal judges or attorneys qualified to serve as judges. Prop. 1 would make it easier for smaller municipalities to fill empty judgeships with qualified individuals. The proposition could benefit public safety by making it easier to obtain search warrants and streamlining other proceedings, such as ordinance violations, misdemeanor offenses and other types of cases.

”

Opposition

Opponents

• Progress Texas

Arguments

• The League of Women Voters of Texas published arguments for and arguments against the ballot measure. The following is the argument in opposition:

“

This proposition is unnecessary as Texas law already permits a person to be appointed as a municipal judge in more than one municipality at the same time. This law would only allow a person to be elected in more than one municipality. If the municipal judge were elected to a community where he or she was not a resident, he or she may not have an understanding or interest in that community.

”

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$0.00
Opposition:	$0.00

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Texas ballot measures

There were no ballot measure committees registered in support of the measure or in opposition to the measure.

Media editorials

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• Austin American-Statesman: “YES to allow municipal judges to serve multiple cities at once if voters elect them to the bench. This would help smaller towns that don’t need their own full-time judge.”
• The Austin Chronicle: “Sure, the state's elected municipal judges should be able to serve in more than one city at the same time, since appointed judges can already do so. See what we mean about trivial? We couldn't even tell you which Texas cities still elect their municipal judges (Austin doesn't), but those that do apparently have trouble finding qualified jurists.”
• Corpus Christi Caller-Times: “Current state law prohibits it. Allowing it to happen would help small towns who have trouble finding qualified judges. Who's opposed to that? Not us.”
• The Dallas Morning News: “Already in Texas, appointed municipal judges can serve multiple jurisdictions. This amendment would extend that ability to elected judges as well. This change would give smaller jurisdictions a better shot at getting qualified judges to oversee ordinance violations and low-level misdemeanors.”
• The Eagle: “Under current law, a municipal judge elected in one community cannot be elected to serve also in other communities. This creates a hardship for small communities, particularly those in West Texas, who lack a qualified or interested candidate for election to the municipal court. If this proposition passes, a person could be elected municipal judge in multiple communities.”
• Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “Staffing governments can be tough in rural parts of Texas. This amendment would let an elected municipal judge hold the position for more than one area, something an appointed judge can already do. It’s a small but sensible change to help these communities.”
• Longview News-Journal: “The Constitution already allows for appointed municipal judges to hold several appointed judgeships and that accounts for 95 percent of the offices. This would mean little change.”
• Waco Tribune-Herald: “This amendment would allow municipal judges to hold more than one paid public office at a time, so they could preside over multiple municipalities, a boon to less-populated communities.”

Opposition

• Houston Chronicle: “We urge voters to reject the amendment. Even in small communities, candidates running for local office ought to be local residents. Existing law already allows for elected municipal judges to be appointed to serve in another court, but expanding that laxity to elected positions as well is unnecessary and unwise.”
• San Antonio Express-News: "This is unnecessary and could be addressed through municipal charter changes."

Overview of media editorials

The following table provides an overview of the positions that media editorial boards had taken on the Texas 2019 ballot measures:

Media	Prop. 1	Prop. 2	Prop. 3	Prop. 4	Prop. 5	Prop. 6	Prop. 7	Prop. 8	Prop. 9	Prop. 10
Austin American-Statesman	a	a	a	d	a	a	a	a	a	a
The Austin Chronicle	a	a	d	d	a	tc	a	a	d	a
Corpus Christi Caller-Times	a	a	a	d	a	a	a	a	a	a
The Dallas Morning News	a	a	a	d	d	a	a	a	d	a
The Eagle	a	a	a	d	a	a	a	a	a	a
Fort Worth Star-Telegram	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	d	a
Houston Chronicle	d	a	a	d	a	a	a	a	a	a
Longview News-Journal	a	a	a	d	a	a	a	a	a	a
San Antonio Express-News	d	a	a	d	a	a	a	a	a	a
Waco Tribune-Herald	a	a	a	d	a	a	a	a	d	a

Background

Municipal courts

See also: Texas Municipal Courts

The Texas Government Code required a municipal court in each incorporated municipality, with the courts having jurisdiction in criminal cases related to the municipality's ordinances and concurrent jurisdiction with justice courts in state Class C misdemeanor violations.

As of September 1, 2018, there were 940 municipal courts and 1,317 municipal judges in Texas. Municipalities were responsible for all costs related to municipal courts, including judges' salaries.

Changes to the provision governing holding multiple offices

Texas Constitution
Preamble
Articles
1 • 2 3 (1-43) • 3 (44-49) • 3 (50-67) 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • Appendix

See also: Section 40 of Article 16 of the Texas Constitution

The original Section 40 of Article 16 of the 1876 Texas Constitution prohibited a person from holding more than one paid public office at the same time. The original language made exceptions for four offices—justice of the peace, county commissioner, notary public, and postmaster.

Between 1876 and 2018, Section 40 of Article 16 had been amended six times. The following is a list of changes to Section 40:

• Proposition 1 (1926): Proposition 1, which received 57 percent of the vote, made an exception for enlisted men and officers of the National Guard, National Guard Reserve, and Reserve Corps of the United States from the requirement that no person can hold more than one paid public office at the same time.

• Proposition 1 (1932): Proposition 1, which received 63 percent of the vote, made an exception for retired enlisted men, officers, and warrant officers of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps from the requirement that no person can hold more than one paid public office at the same time.

• Proposition 12 (1972): Proposition 12, which received 51 percent of the vote, created exceptions from the requirement that no person can hold more than one paid public office at the same time for retired enlisted men, officers, and warrant officers of the U.S. Coast Guard and officers and directors of soil and water conservation districts. Proposition 12 added other provisions to Section 40, which said that state employees who receive compensation from the state but who are not state officers can serve as members of the governing bodies of school districts, cities, towns, and other local government districts, provided that the employees receive no compensation for serving as members of local governing bodies. Proposition 12 also stated that non-elected state officers could hold other non-elected offices if the consecutive service benefits the state, is required by state or federal law, and there is no conflict between the offices.

• Proposition 11 (2001): Proposition 11, which received 67 percent of the vote, provided that schoolteachers, retired schoolteachers, and retired school administrators could receive compensation for serving as members of the governing bodies of school districts, cities, towns, and other local government districts. Proposition 12, passed in 1972, allowed schoolteachers to serve on governing bodies, but schoolteachers could not receive compensation.

• Proposition 21 (2003): Proposition 21, which received 52 percent of the vote, permitted public university faculty and retired faculty to receive compensation for serving as members of water districts.

• Proposition 7 (2009): Proposition 7, which received 73 percent of the vote, made an exception for enlisted members and officers of the Texas State Guard and other active militias organized under state law from the requirement that no person can hold more than one paid public office at the same time.

Referred amendments on the ballot

See also: List of Texas ballot measures

The following statistics are based on ballot measures between 1995 and 2018 in Texas:

• Ballots featured 159 constitutional amendments.
• An average of 13 measures appeared on odd-year statewide ballots.
• The number of ballot measures on odd-year statewide ballots ranged from 7 to 22.
• Voters approved 91 percent (145 of 159) and rejected 9 percent (14 of 159) of the constitutional amendments.

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1995-2018
Total number	Approved	Percent approved	Defeated	Percent defeated	Odd-year average	Odd-year median	Odd-year minimum	Odd-year maximum
159	145	91.2%	14	8.8%	13.1	12.5	7	22

In 2019, 216 constitutional amendments had been filed in the Texas State Legislature. Legislators were permitted to file constitutional amendments through March 8, 2019, unless permission was given to introduce an amendment after the deadline. Between 2009 and 2017, an average of 187 constitutional amendments were filed during regular legislative sessions. The state legislature approved an average of nine constitutional amendments during regular legislative sessions. Therefore, the average rate of certification during regular legislative sessions was 4.7 percent. In 2019, 10 of the 216 proposed constitutional amendments were certified for the ballot, meaning the rate of certification was 4.6 percent.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Texas Constitution

In Texas, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the Texas State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.

The constitutional amendment was introduced into the state legislature as House Joint Resolution 72 (HJR 72) on February 13, 2019.

On April 16, 2019, the Texas House of Representatives approved HJR 72, with 140 members supporting the constitutional amendment and 10 members not voting. At least 100 votes were needed. On May 19, 2019, the Texas State Senate approved HJR 72 in a unanimous vote.

Vote in the Texas House of Representatives April 16, 2019
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 100  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	140	0	10
Total percent	93.33%	0.00%	6.67%
Democrat	63	0	4
Republican	77	0	6

Vote in the Texas State Senate May 19, 2019
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 21  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	31	0	0
Total percent	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Democrat	12	0	0
Republican	19	0	0

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Texas

Poll times

In Texas, all polling places are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. Texas is divided between the Central and Mountain time zones. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration in Texas

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in Texas, an applicant must be a United States citizen, a resident of the county in which he or she is registering, and at least 17 years and 10 months old.

The deadline to register to vote is 30 days before the election. Prospective voters can request a postage-paid voter registration form online or complete the form online and return it to the county voter registrar. Applications are also available at a variety of locations including the county voter registrar’s office, the secretary of state’s office, libraries, and high schools. Voter registration certificates are mailed to newly registered voters.

Automatic registration

Texas does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Texas does not permit online voter registration.

Same-day registration

Texas does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Prospective voters must reside in the county in which they are registering to vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Texas does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

State law requires election officials to conduct a check of registered voters' citizenship status. Section 18.068 of the Texas Election Code says the following:

“	The secretary of state shall quarterly compare the information received under Section 16.001 of this code and Section 62.113, Government Code, to the statewide computerized voter registration list. If the secretary determines that a voter on the registration list is deceased or has been excused or disqualified from jury service because the voter is not a citizen, the secretary shall send notice of the determination to the voter registrar of the counties considered appropriate by the secretary.	”
—Section 18.068, Texas Election Code

In January 2019, the Texas secretary of state’s office announced that it would be providing local election officials with a list of registered voters who obtained driver’s licenses or IDs with documentation such as work visas or green cards. Counties would then be able to require voters on the list to provide proof of citizenship within 30 days. The review was halted by a federal judge in February 2019, and Secretary of State David Whitley rescinded the advisory in April. A news release from Whitley’s office stated that “... going forward, the Texas Secretary of State's office will send to county voter registrars only the matching records of individuals who registered to vote before identifying themselves as non-U.S. citizens to DPS when applying for a driver's license or personal identification card. This will ensure that naturalized U.S. citizens who lawfully registered to vote are not impacted by this voter registration list maintenance process.”

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Texas Secretary of State’s office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Texas requires voters to present photo identification while voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of February 2023. Click here for the Texas Secretary of State's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

• Texas driver’s license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
• Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
• Texas Personal Identification Card issued by DPS
• Texas handgun license issued by DPS
• United States Military Identification Card containing the person’s photograph
• United States Citizenship Certificate containing the person’s photograph
• United States passport (book or card)

Identification provided by voters aged 18-69 may be expired for no more than four years before the election date. Voters aged 70 and older can use an expired ID card regardless of how long ago the ID expired.

Voters who are unable to provide one of the ID options listed above can sign a Reasonable Impediment Declaration and provide one of the following supporting documents:

• Copy or original of a government document that shows the voter’s name and an address, including the voter’s voter registration certificate
• Copy of or original current utility bill
• Copy of or original bank statement
• Copy of or original government check
• Copy of or original paycheck
• Copy of or original of (a) a certified domestic (from a U.S. state or territory) birth certificate or (b) a document confirming birth admissible in a court of law which establishes the voter’s identity (which may include a foreign birth document)

The following voters are exempt from showing photo ID:

• Voters with a disability
  • Voters with a disability "may apply with the county voter registrar for a permanent exemption to presenting an acceptable photo identification or following the Reasonable Impediment Declaration procedure in the county."
• Voters who have a religious objection to being photographed

Voters who do not have a photo ID can obtain a Texas Election Identification Certificate (EIC) at any Texas driver’s license office during regular business hours. Voters can also obtain an Election Identification Certificate from a mobile station. Locations are listed here.

See also

2019 measures

• 2019 ballot measures
• County and municipal governance on the ballot
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot

Texas

• Texas ballot measures
• Texas ballot measure laws
• Judicial selection in Texas

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• House Joint Resolution 72 (2019)