Whoever wrote or approved that should be fired. Whether they are a lawyer or politician, it matters not. To parse it one needs to write it out, draw brackets around concepts, and then add lines between the potentially-grouped concepts because there is so much in-between that you forget it all by the time you get to the end.
Apparently that's just the title, though what the proposition does is apparently appending a similarly incomprehensible sentence to the state consitution:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 1-b, Article VIII, Texas Constitution,
is amended by adding Subsection (d-2) to read as follows:
(d-2) Notwithstanding Subsections (d) and (d-1) of this
section, the legislature by general law may provide for the
reduction of the amount of a limitation provided by Subsection (d)
of this section and applicable to a residence homestead for a tax
year to reflect any statutory reduction from the preceding tax year
in the maximum compressed rate, as defined by general law, or a
successor rate of the maintenance and operations taxes imposed for
general elementary and secondary public school purposes on the
homestead. A general law enacted under this subsection may take
into account the difference between the tier one maintenance and
operations rate for the 2018 tax year and the maximum compressed
rate for the 2019 tax year applicable to a residence homestead and
any reductions in subsequent tax years before the tax year in which
the general law takes effect in the maximum compressed rate
applicable to a residence homestead.
For this reason it should be voted against, as it makes the state constitution illegible, but as for what it does I haven't a single clue.
I don't think the wording is the problem. It says what it does.
The problem is in the effect of the law.
Article 8 Section 1-b (d) says that an elderly or disabled person's property taxes (on their home) can't be increased if the money would go to public schools. It also establishes the concept that their current (unincreasable) educational property taxes are transferable property; they can take this "limitation" with them if they move.
However, while it establishes the concept, it doesn't enact anything. Section 1-b (d) doesn't say that people can take their limitation with them if they move. It says that the legislature is free to make a law allowing them to do so:
> The legislature, by general law, may provide for the transfer of all or a proportionate amount of a limitation provided by this subsection for a person who qualifies for the limitation and establishes a different residence homestead.
It also has two clauses, which I assume were added by amendment, specifying a reduced limitation for the year 1997 and for the year 2015. I didn't notice any clause authorizing the legislature to enact this type of reduction, but they seem to have managed to do it all the same.
Anyway, the new subsection also doesn't make any changes to the limitation. Like the clause about transferring your limitation from one home to another home, this one authorizes the legislature to modify the limitation under certain circumstances:
> Notwithstanding Subsections (d) and (d-1) of this section, the legislature by general law may provide for the reduction of the amount of a limitation provided by Subsection (d) of this section and applicable to a residence homestead for a tax year to reflect any statutory reduction from the preceding tax year in the maximum compressed rate, as defined by general law, or a successor rate of the maintenance and operations taxes imposed for general elementary and secondary public school purposes on the homestead.
Bad writing isn't the reason this is difficult to understand. The reason is that there are too many layers of indirection; the system itself is difficult to understand, and therefore any description of it will also be difficult to understand.
The only effect of this law appears to be to authorize the state legislature to pass laws. They could already do that. What is the effect supposed to be?
Funny that I was about to comment "it doesn't seem so bad, just draw a directed graph to work it out". Reading your comment it does seem a little unreasonable.
A normative statement - which I declare to point out that you could also share what should be the case.
What might be more helpful is that ballot initiatives should have a stricter template based on type. If you're changing tax code it could be:
- Initiative Type: Taxes
- Affects: The homesteads of elders in X, Y, for Z
- Results: Taxes are raised
- Description: As stated above
- Definitions: Homesteads - X, Elders - Y, ad valorem - etc
Of course this is essentially making the same conclusions as the title which is that standard writing/legalese is really no longer acceptable given the complexity of many modern laws and incentivized parties.
They were deliberately torturing themselves to avoid saying "raise taxes."
What they seem to be saying, if I parsed it correctly:
"We now get to include tax breaks from the previous year as a factor in property value when taxing the elderly."
That seems awful. I kind of get the hyper-technicality they're going for, but it still seems like they're sticking it to seniors... again, if I understood it correctly.
These issues are nuanced. Texas municipalities depend on property taxes more than most as there’s no state income tax.
One thing local government politicians love to do is pass tax exemptions for old people, disabled people, veterans and combinations of the three. It’s a type of patronage, that lets Mayor Good ‘ol Boy drop by the senior center and VFW and pull in the votes.
Property taxes are essentially allocating the levy based on your proportional share of value. When they get out of control in small towns the effect is a two-tier system where some people pay dramatically more.
That’s exactly the opposite of what it does. Stuff like ‘reduce the limitation’ has the same ambiguity as ‘turn down the thermostat’ where it’s not clear if you are lowering the value or the effect.
I'm not 100% certain I understand it, but I see 3 sections in there:
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the reduction of the amount of
a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school purposes on the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled
to reflect any statutory reduction from the preceding tax year in the maximum compressed rate of the maintenance and operations taxes imposed for those purposes on the homestead.
