Republican leadership, grassroots out of sync on Proposition 4

Proposition 4 aims to increase the number of "Tier One" research universities in the state, by redirecting an existing higher education endowment to a handful of state universities considered to be within striking distance of that coveted distinction.

But the proposition may well have passed based on the support of urban Democrats. The proposition carried big in the cities – particularly the ones with universities likely to benefit from it. It failed big in rural Texas, Williamson County, Tyler, Longview, and the Permian Basin. It also failed in Brazos County — ironic because it is the home of one of the state’s two Tier One universities, but also not surprising because grassroots conservative movements have flourished in and around Texas A & M. Some of the regions are home to places that would lose as a result of Proposition 4 (Tyler and the Permian Basin, for example), but just about all the areas where Proposition 4 failed tend to vote GOP.

Despite – or perhaps because of – the conservative grass roots opposition, big names turned out in the days leading up to the elections to urge support for the measure, after a grassroots conservative movement appeared to be gaining traction in opposition to the bill.

Supporters, including Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and House Speaker Joe Straus, among many other Republicans, spent a lot of money and stumped repeatedly for Proposition 4 — apparently out of concern that it might not actually pass. It did, with a modest 56.7 percent — the second coolest reception received by any of the 11 amendments.

The margin of victory is all the more remarkable given that the opposition spent almost no money. Supporters meanwhile spent more than $150,000. Former Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby led the effort, which was bolstered by contributions from university regents, big university donors, AT&T, the Dallas Regional Chamber, and Continental Airlines.

The loudest opposition came from Young Conservatives of Texas vice chairman Tony McDonald, who sent out press releases, gave interviews, and wrote opinion pieces on the subject. Like-minded critics have warned that the bill could inadvertently encourage universities such as The University of Texas-Permian Basin to raise their tuition to make up for the money lost and redirected to other institutions like Texas Tech and UT-Dallas. UTPB students, often being rural, are likely to have less income than students at UTD. Also, universities that get Proposition 4 money may use the journey toward "Tier One" status as an excuse to raise tuition.

The criticism levied by McDonald and others held that quality of teaching must be emphasized over research, even if the latter gets universities more pats on the back from their peers.

"Texas universities need to be reminded that the students are the customers, not the faculty," McDonald said Oct. 7. "Texans would be much better off if research were handled by the private sector. Profits and the drive to innovate in the market are a much better catalyst for sound and useful research than the self-promotion of academics."

Besides YCT, other socially conservative groups and spokesmen – e.g, Wall Builders, the Heritage Alliance, and talk radio host Adam McManus — urged a no vote on Proposition 4. As did such economically conservative groups as Americans for Prosperity and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.

Proposition 1, which involved government taking of property, got the coolest reception on the ballot – just 55 percent approval. The proposition was to finance "buffer areas" around military installations "for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation" (the language on the ballot).

What was wrong with that, in the eyes of nearly 45 percent of voters? Well, simply, that it involves a taking by municipalities of property to prevent private development.

"It’s still taking private property," said Paul Burka on his blog at Texas Monthly. "[I vote] No."

By contrast, the most electorally popular measure proved to be Proposition 11, the constitutional amendment prohibiting "the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."

Translation: the government can’t take your land and hand it off to a private developer for "economic development" purposes and claim it serves a public interest. The proposition won over 81 percent of the vote.

Texas Farm Bureau President Kenneth Dierschke called the victory "important but incomplete," saying property owners deserve additional protections, including offers based on fair market value, compensation for diminished access, and the right to repurchase if nothing is done with taken land. In other words, there’s still a ways to go before the provisions of the 80th session’s HB 2006, which Perry vetoed, can be realized in statute and practice.

Dierschke said the broad support sent a "clear message to the Legislature and the Governor that Texans are tired of eminent domain reform taking a back seat to political ambitions and business interests."

Comments (1)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment