Hello Friends!
Seventeen more amendments are on the ballot this November in my home state of Texas. No, that’s not a typo. And no, Texas hasn’t suddenly become a different state. We’ve just fallen deeper into a pattern that says more about how we govern than what we govern.
Instead of reforming laws, Texas politicians keep rewriting the Constitution.
And as an economist and student of history, I can’t help but ask:
What do these amendments reveal—not just about our policies—but about our priorities?
This isn’t a “how to vote” piece. It’s a “how to think” piece.
If you want to see the ballot language and recommendations, I suggest reading this guide from Texas Policy Research where I’m a board member. What I offer here is context: a free-market, classical-liberal lens for understanding what these proposals mean to you.
Let’s break it down.
🧱 First: Why So Many Amendments?
Texas has one of the longest and most amended state constitutions in the country. Since 1876, it’s been amended nearly 520 times. And this year’s batch—17 of them—tells a familiar story:
Avoiding hard decisions with easy exemptions
Locking in new spending instead of limiting growth
Creating permanent funds with temporary momentum
Promising tax relief without restraining budgets
In short, when the Legislature doesn’t fix root problems during session, they punt it to voters—and wrap the ball in feel-good slogans.
📦 The 2025 Amendments: A Policy Lens
Here’s how to understand what’s at stake, grouped by theme, not politics.
Tax Carveouts and Exemptions
🗳️ Propositions: 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17
Economic Insight: Every time we create a new exemption, we narrow the tax base and shift the burden onto others. It’s not fairness—it’s favoritism dressed as compassion.
Some are well-intentioned: veterans’ families, seniors, small businesses, homeowners.
But none tackle the real issue: property taxes are too high because spending is too high.
Classical liberal takeaway: A just tax system is broad, neutral, and low—not riddled with exceptions that reward political pull.
Permanent Funds and Constitutional Spending
🗳️ Propositions: 1, 4, 14
Economic Insight: Creating new state funds—whether for tech training, water, or research—locks in spending priorities that may or may not serve taxpayers long-term.
These funds often operate off-budget, limiting oversight and flexibility.
They sound good (“investing in the future!”), but they grow government with little sunset or review.
Once created, they rarely shrink or go away.
Historical perspective: Milton Friedman warned that “temporary” government programs often become permanent—and permanent ones always grow.
Preventative Tax Bans
🗳️ Propositions: 2, 6, 8
Economic Insight: These amendments ban new types of taxes—like capital gains, estate taxes, and transaction taxes—before they ever start.
This is one area where constitutional amendments make sense: protecting taxpayers from future temptations by lawmakers under pressure.
These bans provide certainty to investors, retirees, and families planning for the future.
It’s hard to attract capital when entrepreneurs worry about future confiscation.
Free-market takeaway: Predictability attracts investment. Guardrails today prevent tax traps tomorrow.
Governance, Courts, and Rights
🗳️ Propositions: 3, 12, 15, 16
These measures touch everything from judicial discipline to parental rights to citizenship-based voting.
Economic Insight: None of these are directly about money—but they all matter for liberty, stability, and long-run prosperity.
Clear voting rules protect legitimacy.
Parental rights support school accountability.
Judicial oversight builds trust in institutions.
Institutional takeaway: Free markets rest on the rule of law. Rights must be protected for prosperity to flourish.
📉 What’s Missing? Structural Restraint
Here’s what you won’t find on the ballot this year:
No amendment limiting government spending growth
No proposal to phase out property taxes
No requirement to tie tax cuts to budget cuts
That’s the real problem.
These amendments are mostly symptoms, not solutions. Texans are being asked to endorse the consequences of legislative failure—not real reform.
🎓 Final Thoughts: Think Like a Founder, Not a Faction
If you’re reading this, chances are you care about the future of Texas—and not just who wins the next news cycle.
Here’s my advice:
Don’t just vote your heart. Think through the incentives.
Don’t just read headlines. Read between the lines.
And don’t settle for patches. Demand principles.
Our Constitution should protect liberty, not become a scrapbook of legislative leftovers.
It’s time we asked more of Austin—and more of ourselves.
Let People Prosper!
Interesting analysis. I like your phrase "think like a founder not a faction. " Thanks Vance.
That is scary. How did so many Amendments end up on the ballot?