Texans across the state took to the polls Nov. 5 to vote on 10 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. According to unofficial totals released by the Texas Secretary of State, voters supported nine of the 10 propositions.
Proposition 1 was the only proposed amendment to fail. Voters struck down the proposition which would’ve allowed acting municipal judges to hold more than one office at the same time by a total of 35.03 percent of the vote in favor, 64.97 percent opposed.
Proposition 5, which was backed by local Texas House Rep. John Cyrier (R-Lockhart) and local Texas State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), won handily with 88 percent of voters in favor, 12 percent opposed. The proposition redistributes 100 percent of sales tax collected on sporting goods to the Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Texas Historical Commission to stabilize funding for state and local parks. The proposition was structured in a way as to not raise state sales and use taxes.
11.41 percent of registered voters in Gonzales County—a total of 1,384 votes of the 12,125 registered—participated in the election. As of the end of early voting, Friday, Nov. 1, there was 618 early voters, including main-in ballots, in Gonzales County.
Gonzales County voters followed statewide results by supporting all propositions except Proposition 1. These amendments all stem from the now-closed 2019 Texas Legislative regular session. For any changes to the Texas Constitution to occur, a majority of voters must support the proposition.
Unofficial results for the 2019 Nov. 5 Texas Constitutional Amendment election. Figures from the Texas Secretary of State.
Proposition 1 (HJR 72)
“The constitutional amendment permitting a person to hold more than one office as a municipal judge at the same time.”
For: 34.56 percent
Against: 65.44 percent
Proposition 2 (SJR 79)
“The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $200 million to provide financial assistance for the development of certain projects in economically distressed areas.”
For: 65.62 percent
Against: 34.38 percent
Proposition 3 (HJR 34)
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of a portion of the appraised value of certain property damaged by a disaster.”
For: 85.09 percent
Against: 14.91 percent
Proposition 4 (HJR 38)
“The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual income tax, including a tax on an individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income.”
For: 74.41 percent
Against: 25.29 percent
Proposition 5 (SJR 24)
“The constitutional amendment dedicating the revenue received from the existing state sales and use taxes that are imposed on sporting goods to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Historical Commission to protect Texas’ natural areas, water quality, and history by acquiring, managing, and improving state and local parks and historic sites while not increasing the rate of the state sales and use taxes.”
For: 88 percent
Against: 12 percent
Proposition 6 (HJR 12)
"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase by $3 billion the maximum bond amount authorized for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas."
For: 64 percent
Against: 36 percent
Proposition 7 (HJR 151)
“The constitutional amendment allowing increased distributions to the available school fund.”
For: 74.11 percent
Against: 25.89 percent
Proposition 8 (HJR 4)
“The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the flood infrastructure fund to assist in the financing of drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects.”
For: 77.82 percent
Against: 22.18 percent
Proposition 9 (HJR 95)
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation precious metal held in a precious metal depository located in this state.”
For: 51.61 percent
Against: 48.39 percent
Proposition 10 (SJR 32)
“The constitutional amendment to allow the transfer of a law enforcement animal to a qualified caretaker in certain circumstances.”
For: 93.75 percent
Against: 6.25 percent