Which of the following is facilitating a more moderate Texas political culture quizlet

1980: 68% Anglos, 21% Latinos, 12% African Americans, 0% Asian Americans, 1% Other
1990: 61% Anglos, 25% Latinos, 12% African Americans, 2% Asian Americans, 0% Other
2000: 52% Anglos, 32% Latinos, 11% African Americans, 3% Asian Americans, 2% Other
2010: 45% Anglos, 38% Latinos, 11% African Americans, 4% Asian Americans, 2% Other
2015: 43% Anglos, 40% Latinos, 11% African Americans, 4% Asian Americans, 2% Other

States provde public services to their residents, including schools, colleges, and universities, healthcare, law enforcement, welfare services, transportation, agricultural support, and conservations

- The major budget items and local governments in Texas and around the nation are education, healthcare,public safety, (police and Fire dept. ) and transportation

Def: the extent to which the Texas speaker and lieutenant governor can govern and take political action

The Speaker of the House and Lieutenant Governor have procedural and institutional power;
Procedural power means they appoint committee chairs;
Institutional power means they co-chair the legislative budget committee and post-audit committee
Person who presides over house --> speaker of the house. Representative elected by other representatives. Can be removed. Lieutenant gov --> senate, elected state wide.

Sig: the Texas legislature is utterly unlike US Congress in that legislative power is centralized and is in two main presiding officers (lecture)

Significance:
Legislative power is centralized and is in two main presiding officers;
Makes coherent, responsible policy possible

Recommended textbook solutions

American Government

1st EditionGlen Krutz

412 solutions

Politics in States and Communities

15th EditionSusan A. MacManus, Thomas R. Dye

177 solutions

Politics in States and Communities

15th EditionSusan A. MacManus, Thomas R. Dye

177 solutions

Criminal Justice in America

9th EditionChristina Dejong, Christopher E. Smith, George F Cole

105 solutions

In the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall argued that

a. state governments had the power and the duty to protect their citizens from onerous federal legislation.

b. although the federal government could create a national bank, it could not shield the bank's branches from taxation by the governments of the states in which the branches were located.

c. the federal government had the right to charter a national bank, and that state governments had no right to impede its functions through taxation.

d. although a national bank would have been an effective means with which the federal government could regulate the economy, it was not the only means available and therefore did not meet the requirement of the "necessary and proper clause."

e. the will of the people, as expressed through the actions of their state governments, must always take precedence over the whims of the more distant national governing officials.

-Political culture is the shared values, beliefs, and behaviors regarding government and politics that develop over time through the process of political socialization.
-The political culture of Texas expresses the influence of three main currents of political ideology: classical liberalism, social conservatism, and populism.
-The histories of Texas's major political parties and social groups both shape and are shaped by the state's political culture.
-Texas has recently seen a dramatic population increase, driven primarily by a rapidly growing Latino population.
Public opinion broadly reflects Texas's political culture and provides us with a running tally of how that culture might change over time.
-the relationship between the government and the people,
-the rights and responsibilities of the people,
-the shared identity among members of a political community,
-the government's obligations, and
limits on the government's authority.

ex American political culture can be defined according to some basic and commonly shared beliefs, such as our commitment to democracy, equality, free enterprise, and individualism. Concepts related to liberty, nationalism, and reliance on a legislative body, instead of an individual ruler, are also unique to our political culture.

Populism is concerned primarily with the well-being of ordinary people and emphasizes the popular will; in fact, that's its chief virtue as a political position. Populism has both political and social dimensions. On the political side, support for government involvement in regulating society and the economy often has a populist tone because such policies are justified as part of an effort to establish a baseline of well-being for all members of society, rich and poor alike. But populism can also inform socially conservative proposals, such as cutting taxes and shrinking government in order to enable all people to enjoy more liberty. In some instances, populist rhetorical appeals to "the people" might be invoked to mask the substance of what political leaders are advocating, which may be policies intended to benefit a narrow group of constituents. Thus, depending on context, one may find similar populist appeals in support of very different political positions.

Occasionally populism even serves as a vehicle to defuse or ignore tensions between the influence of classical liberalism on one hand and social conservatism on the other. At various moments in the state's history, populist appeals have been used to advocate government action on behalf of poor farmers but also lower taxes for middle- and upper-class Texans. Because of its ambiguity, the term "populist" often refers to the use of such broad public appeals to ground political language that is otherwise hard to reduce to an identifiable or clear set of policy goals and preferences.

Provides a window into what Texans seem to want from the political system. One of the advantages of monitoring public opinion is that it gives us the ability to observe tensions and sources of potential change in the historically rooted patterns of Texas's political culture. In a more immediate sense, information about public attitudes on politics and policy also helps us to assess how public opinion shapes the behavior of elected officials and other political leaders who attempt to follow it.
Public opinion is measured through scientifically designed surveys, commonly called public opinion polls
For much of Texas's modern political history, the balance between classical liberalism, social conservatism, and populism has translated into what has frequently been called a "low taxes, low services" approach to government.
This explains why, when the state approaches a fiscal crisis (as it cyclically does), public officials search frantically for users' fees to raise—fees for driver's licenses, hunting licenses, motor vehicle registrations, student services, and more.
"low taxes, low services"
As Texas becomes more populous, candidates and elected officials in both parties increasingly struggle to reconcile Texans' pervasive allegiance to the "low taxes, low services" motto with the state government's duty to perform its required tasks in the face of increased demand for basic services and infrastructure like roads, water, and electricity, not to mention more complex services like a robust public education system.

The beliefs, values, and attitudes that make up political culture in Texas provide the backdrop for policy and politics in the state. Individuals form these beliefs through a process of socialization that includes private influences in their home life as well as public ones like work, school, and religion. The shared political culture of Texans is intertwined with the particular history of the state, which reflects Texas's regional influences as well as geographical and ethnic diversity. This history has shaped a political culture that is distinctly conservative, especially when it comes to limiting taxes and the size of government.Dramatic changes in both the size of the state's population as well as the composition of that population constitute one of the most important mechanisms of potential change in Texas's political culture. The recent population has been driven in large part by a very rapid increase in the Latino population, which has resulted in the non-Hispanic white population losing their majority status in the state.

In the midst of these dramatic demographic changes, measuring public opinion gives us ways of examining the current configuration of political attitudes at specific moments in time, enabling a more detailed and immediate view of the attitudes that, over time, contribute to the overall shape of political culture in the state. Public opinion provides important insights into the similarities and differences among Texans in the present, enabling us to understand how popular attitudes both reflect and remake a political culture that has evolved over many generations.

Central Ideas

A constitution is a binding contract between a government and its citizens that reflects the influence of the time and place in which it was written.
State constitutions tend to differ from the U.S. Constitution in that they are longer, more frequently amended, and more likely to distribute power among numerous elected officials and the people.
Texas's multi-constitutional history is one of crisis, response, influence from political elites, and accumulation of principles.
The contemporary Texas Constitution is extremely long, detailed, and disorganized, but a close analysis of its structure can help to clarify the framers' intentions.
Modern attempts at revising the constitution have been hampered not only by an inability to reach consensus given the interests at stake, but also by the difficulty of presenting complex issues to an uninformed electorate.
Lawmakers regularly adjust it in response to changing circumstances, hoping that their revisions will better enable it to meet the complex demands of modern life. So while those aging parchment papers carry much symbolic weight, the constitution itself is actually a living document.
The Texas Constitution has two real-world jobs: it defines the pact between the state government and its citizens, and it establishes the law that is the basis for Texas's legal system. And as much as it lays out lofty principles that guide the organization of society, it also affects the daily life of ordinary Texans. The quality of the state roads you drive on and the public schools you attend is determined, at least in some sense, by the words in the constitution.

Philosophically, the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that elected or appointed officials would promote the public interest while being one step removed from the public mood and the passions of self-interest. The principle of federalism, which creates state governments with their own proper realm of authority over the lives of their citizens, lends importance to state governments and, by extension, the state constitutions that establish democratic institutions in the states. State constitutions see more popular influence because of two main philosophical tendencies: decentralized government and direct representation.
states often go a step beyond and divide powers among multiple authorities. As a consequence, many lower-level officials have shared or overlapping responsibilities that in a more centralized system might reside in one top administrator. This creates multiple avenues by which public passions or moods may infiltrate the political process at the state level.
At the state level, actions of the legislature are not the only means of creating laws. Popular elections can do so as well.
Twenty-seven states have initiative and/or referendum provisions that let voters and interest groups put policy proposals on the ballot or vote on legislation proposed by their state legislatures. Eighteen states have recall provisions that let voters remove elected officials from office. Texas has no referendum or recall provisions, but is among the many states where voters directly elect multiple officials within the executive branch as well as members of the judiciary.
One result of this philosophical trend can be less efficient government and greater difficulty in determining accountability. The public may see more chances to weigh in on a broad range of offices and relish the ability to go around elected officials, but busy election calendars, long and confusing ballots, and under-informed voters can also reduce the ability of the government and elected representatives to make and implement good public policy.

Texas, then a Spanish province, joined the state of Coahuila in 1824 to form the new state of Coahuila y Tejas. The Mexican Constitution required each individual state to have its own constitution, which the legislature of Coahuila y Tejas finally published in 1827.3
Notable Features
A community property system: Married couples could have two types of property: separate property, owned by one spouse and usually acquired before marriage, and community property, owned equally by both spouses and acquired by either or both spouses during their marriage. This arrangement worked well for a frontier society like Texas's, where life was risky and often short. Since either spouse could claim possession of all property acquired while married, an untimely death wouldn't destabilize the family.4
Homestead exemption from bankruptcy: The homestead protection against bankruptcy also helped stabilize the precarious lives of frontier families. Many Anglo settlers who came to Texas were fleeing debts in states such as Tennessee, so the legislature exempted from creditor claims all lands received from the Spanish sovereign (or Texas), and some movable property (such as furniture or jewelry).5
Education: The Constitution of Coahuila y Tejas also instructed the legislature to promote education—noteworthy because it was a specific piece of policy written directly into the state's fundamental governing document. The state never established a statewide school system, but the idea generated intense interest in later Texas constitutional conventions and has persisted into modern times, challenging even contemporary legislatures.
Separate executive, legislative, and judicial authority: This was required of all Mexican states.
A unicameral state legislature: This consisted of a single chamber with 12 deputies, or diputados, elected by popular vote. Texas was one of the three districts the new state was divided into, and its representatives occupied two seats in the legislature.
Establishment of Catholicism as the state religion: With church members and the military constitutionally subject to the rules of those organizations, and in turn the Catholic Church, semi-independent authorities were created within the state. Consistent with the continental legal tradition, the judiciary could try cases but not interpret the law.
Influences

The Spanish Constitution of 1812 (establishment of a state religion, community property system, and homestead bankruptcy exemption)
The U.S. Constitution (division of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches)
The Constitution of Mexico (which traced its key elements to Spanish and U.S. constitutional traditions)

The constitution of 1827 had addressed some of the day's most important needs, but political unrest in Mexico and misgovernment in Texas prompted dissatisfied state leaders to call for a new constitutional convention in 1833.Their efforts did not result in a new ratified state constitution, but did serve to bring legislators together to write out ideas about how they believed Texas should be run.
Texans were simultaneously fighting the Battle of the Alamo while delegates at the convention across the state were discussing its governance. The convention only lasted for 15 days, but the constitution they produced would serve the independent Republic of Texas from 1836 to 1845.
Notable Features

Hurried conventioneers lifted whole portions from the U.S. Constitution and several state constitutions. Due in part to the rush, and also likely due to the precedent set by the brevity of the U.S. Constitution, the document was quite brief. It included a number of familiar features:

A short preamble
Separation of powers into three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial)
A bicameral legislature
Checks and balances on the powers of each branch
A bill of rights
Democratic selection of government officeholders (restricted to free, non-aboriginal males)
Influences

The constitution adopted by the Republic of Texas was influenced by Spanish and Mexican law, especially in its inclusion of community property provisions, homestead exemptions and protections, and debtor relief. It was also heavily influenced by the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of Tennessee and other frontier states, particularly their populist and anti-bank ideals (14 of the 59 convention delegates were from Tennessee).

Texas adopted yet another constitution in 1845, when it became the 28th state in the Union. From the start, the state restricted legislative powers—partly because this was a requirement for joining the Union, but also because the framers were influenced by one of the chief concerns of both the working man and the frontiersman: fear of an activist government.

Notable Features

According to The Handbook of Texas Online, the constitution of 1845 is the most respected of Texas's constitutions thanks to its simplicity and directness. It owed its length (about twice that of the Texas Republic's constitution) to its General Provisions article, which concentrated on restricting legislative powers.

Under the General Provisions, the legislature could not authorize individuals to issue bills, checks, promissory notes, or other paper to circulate as money. Total accrued state debt couldn't exceed $100,000 except in cases of war, insurrection, or invasion. Equal, uniform taxation was required, and income and occupation could be taxed. Also, each family was allowed an exemption of $250 on household goods.

The constitution of 1845 included the following familiar features:

Separation of powers into three branches
A bicameral legislature
A democratic form of government
Elected executive and legislative positions
Appointed judicial positions
Homestead and community property provisions
It also granted the governor appointment powers similar to the president's. The governor could appoint the attorney general, secretary of state, and supreme and district court judges (subject to state senate confirmation). However, the comptroller of public accounts and the treasurer were elected every two years by a joint session of the legislature.
Influences

Major influences on the Texas Constitution of 1845 included the U.S. Constitution, Louisiana's new constitution, and the constitution drafted (but not passed) at the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1833.

The Texas Secession Convention, assembled to propose secession, reconvened after voters ratified its proposal for secession from the United States. This time, the constitution had to manage the state's transition from the United States of America to the nascent Confederate States of America.

Notable Features

To adapt the constitution of 1845 to cover Texas's new status as a member of the Confederacy, the Secession Convention mainly replaced references to the United States, emphasized the constitutionality of slavery, and asserted states' rights. This rebel constitution was conservative in that it didn't make extensive changes to the existing constitution or body of laws; it eliminated the clause emancipating slaves but did not resume the African slave trade.

Influences

Because of time limitations, most of the existing text was kept intact and unchanged.

The Constitution of 1866

After the South was defeated in the Civil War, the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1866 was called to make the state constitution conform to the U.S. Constitution and laws once again. The work of the convention amounted to a series of amendments that, with the existing constitution of 1861, became known as the constitution of 1866.

Notable Features

The convention made substantial but limited changes to government institutions. The governor's term was increased to four years, selection of the comptroller and treasurer was changed to popular election, and jurisdictions of various courts in the state were specified in detail.

The constitution also spelled out specific public policies, as opposed to establishing broad descriptions of public authority. It contained "elaborate plans" for a public improvements system, and it planned a state public education system directed by a superintendent of public instruction.

Disagreement unfolded over the legal status of secession. Radical Republicans maintained that secession was nullified "from the beginning" (ab initio) and that consequently all laws and transactions that were based on laws passed since secession in 1861 were null and void. Moderates, successfully led by Andrew J. Hamilton, argued that although secession was nullified as a result of the war, all laws not in conflict with the laws and Constitution of the United States were valid. Their stance was supported by basic international law, which holds that "when sovereignty changes, general law does not change until specifically altered by the new sovereign."6,7 Had they lost, no government act in Texas between 1861 and 1866 would have been valid.

Influences

Like the convention of 1861, this convention aimed for modest changes to the existing document (which traced its origins to the constitution of 1845)

After the Civil War, the U.S. government put pressure on Texas and other secessionist states to comply with the Congressional Reconstruction Acts of 1867. This law stipulated that before qualifying for readmission, former Confederate states had to hold constitutional conventions to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; reject secession; accept that the United States would refuse to pay the Confederate war debt; reject laws passed under the Confederacy; and submit new state constitutions acceptable to the U.S. Congress.Congress put Southern states under military occupation—marking a period broadly known as Reconstruction—and disenfranchised individuals who had participated in the Confederate war effort or secession, including most of the prominent officials who had governed Texas in the past.8
Unsurprisingly, Republican Party members dominated the proceedings, given the Democratic Party's support of the Confederacy and thus most Democrats' inability to participate in the convention. But the Republicans didn't unequivocally unify against the former slaveholding interests among the Democratic minority present. Rather, the Republicans divided themselves according to their geographic region, support for policies promoting economic development, and attitudes toward rights for blacks. Depending on what subject was under consideration, the Democrats in attendance allied themselves with different groups of Republicans.
Out of this morass requiring two sessions over 150 days, the convention failed to produce a complete constitution. Only 49 of the 90 delegates present signed the long, detailed, and incomplete document that resulted; nevertheless, it was published (under military orders) as the Texas Constitution of 1869 and ratified by popular vote.
Notable Features

The new constitution included specifications for a broad range of activist educational public policies. A school fund would be financed by receipts from a new poll tax, plus one-fourth of annual taxes, plus income from lands set aside to support schools. The position of the state superintendent of public instruction was maintained and school attendance became compulsory.

In addition, political power was centralized and administrative institutions were strengthened. An immigration bureau was established, no-fee homesteads were granted to settlers, and mineral rights were assigned to landowners. The legislature was authorized to prohibit the sale of liquor near colleges (except in county seats), while it was forbidden from authorizing lotteries or granting divorces.

The essence of the prior document (itself a hand-me-down) remained, specifying a bicameral legislature, the separation of powers, a state court system, and an executive branch with a mix of appointed and elected positions.

The constitution of 1869 reflected the ideals of the newly dominant Republican Party. Republicans had used it as a tool to enfranchise blacks politically and economically, and to make the state economically diverse and dynamic by investing in its human and physical infrastructure.Despite its lofty ideals, the constitution was hated by many leading citizens who had been barred from public office (and thus from participating in drafting it) because of their involvement with the Confederacy. The high taxes and large government deficits needed to fund the surge in public investment in schools, roads, and bridges after the war also went against the grain of everything the "old Texas" economic elites believed in. disliked it for a number of reasons: it had been created under pressure from Washington and the Radical Republicans, it centralized political power and strengthened public institutions, it promoted an activist social agenda, and it was incomplete—a collection of pieces approved by a bare majority of convention delegates.
Governor Coke convened a special session of the legislature in 1875 to consider assembling yet another constitutional convention for Texas. The legislature approved, calling for an election in which voters could approve the convention and select three delegates from each of the state's 30 senatorial districts.
Notable Features

Traditional agricultural interests dominated this constitutional convention (in contrast to the prior one, where business and development interests were strongest) and sought to undo many of the preceding constitution's provisions. Government was decentralized, and state programs were rolled back. The state education system was considerably weakened. Taxes were rolled back too, cutting state government salaries, restricting expenditures, and lowering the state debt. Terms of many public offices were limited, and the activities of state banks and railroads were curtailed.

The legislature was given low wages along with a small staff and supply budget, and was denied the authority to override the governor's vetoes. With less time in session and less resources available, members could not react swiftly to events and didn't meet long enough to give much legislation considerable deliberation.

In addition, members of the judiciary were to be elected every two years. They consequently found themselves limited both by the general public, who could remove them from office, and by the wealthy, who could give or deny necessary campaign contributions.

This structure of government was meant to ensure that officeholders stayed in touch with challenges facing their own communities, and, in the case of the legislature, that senators and representatives had expertise in areas other than government.

Paying attention to choices related to the constitution's organization and coverage will help it make more sense. Specifically, you should look closely at the order of articles and sections, as well as the amount of space devoted to specific areas and provisions.
Throughout the constitution, the framers covered the powers and organization of the government by first focusing on those areas that they deemed most important. With this in mind, they were concerned with emphasizing the popular roots of governmental authority (remember that the last state constitution was a backlash to an overactive government), and thus devoted the very first article to the bill of rights. Similarly, the framers considered the legislative branch to be the most important branch of government, so it is no coincidence that the legislature is discussed before the executive or judicial branches.
The framers devoted considerable time and space to the minute details of numerous policy areas, including extensive coverage of public policy normally decided by local jurisdiction (and therefore not normally included in the state-level governing document). This reflects the frontier populism of the convention delegates, who supported government regulation of economic and social relationships but deeply feared potential abuses of authority by holders of public office. As a result of these tendencies, the Texas Constitution grants extensive powers to government, but these powers are carefully, painstakingly, and restrictively specified.

Generally speaking, both bills of rights cover the same items, just in a different order. In the Texas Bill of Rights, the freedoms of speech and the press are protected in section 8. Peaceful public assembly, the last of the U.S. First Amendment rights, appears in section 27. Protection against unwarranted searches and seizures is assured in section 9.

Rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions are specified in sections 10-21, which include the following:

A right to a speedy trial
Not having to provide evidence against oneself
A right to bail
The obligation of the state to provide its own evidence to support charges
Protection against double jeopardy
A right to a trial by jury
No ex post facto laws
No imprisonment for debts
Requirement of due process of law
has a declaratory tone that differs from that of the U.S. Constitution. In reaction to perceived government overreach by the Radical Republicans, the framers of the Texas document justified its specific protections with sweeping generalizations aimed at what they saw as the major political dangers of the time:

National government—"The maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all the States" (Article I, section 1). This suggests a threat of secession.
State government—"[The people of Texas] have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient" (Article I, section 2). This reads like justification for the convention delegate's actions in drafting the new constitution.
Government favoritism—"All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services" (Article I, section 3). This seems like an explicit criticism of the perceived corruption of Governor E.J. Davis's administration (1870-1874).

The sections on organization, apportionment, and qualifications are unremarkable. They include expected provisions such as specification of a bicameral legislature, the number of seats in each chamber, terms of office, the duration and frequency of the legislative session, and so on.
These say that no law may be passed without first having been a formal bill that goes through the processes of proposal, deliberation, and approval outlined in the constitution.
the framers listed a number of areas in which the legislature could not pass laws. It could not regulate local government affairs, locate or change county seats, or specify election locations. Such restrictions may seem at odds with the constitution's thorough description of county and municipality regulations, but they're consistent with the framers' distrust of elected representatives at all levels.

The executive department of the State shall consist of a governor, who shall be the chief executive officer of the State, a lieutenant-governor, secretary of State, comptroller of public accounts, treasurer, commissioner of the general land office and attorney general.
All but one are to be filled through popular elections. The very first section lists these seven executive offices:
Most portions of this article (sections 4-16) focus on the governor's powers and duties. Many of the remaining sections cover the other six executive offices. By making six of these senior executive authorities separately elected (the secretary of state is appointed by the governor rather than elected), the framers divided and dispersed this branch's authority and ability to govern actively. Thus, it created six possible obstruction points and checks to activities, programs, or plans of each of the executive department officials. Today there are just five, as the office of the treasurer was abolished in 1996.

The judicial power of this State shall be vested in one Supreme Court, in a Court of Appeals, in District Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioners' Courts, in Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in such other courts as may be established by law.
The 27 sections of Article V that follow specify the mode of selection (popular election for all courts), terms of office, and jurisdictions of each of the courts. These sections identify the three types of local courts: county courts, commissioners' courts, and justice of the peace courts. Because of sparse settlement in much of the state at the time, these courts were, in essence, the local government of many areas.

the constitution establishes limits on taxation and spending similar to those imposed on the state's public schools; the main general restriction provided in the article's short first sentence apparently aims to limit the legislature's ability to classify objects for purposes of taxation: "Taxation shall be equal and uniform." Article VIII also limits the ability of the legislature to impose local property taxes and personal income taxes.
The many sections of Article VIII together serve as a restrictive tax code, detailed down to the county and municipal levels. They address questions related to exemptions, tax rates, restrictions on appropriation of funds, and procedural requirements. Section 1, for example, stipulates that "persons engaged in mechanical or agricultural pursuits shall never be required to pay an occupation tax" and "two hundred and fifty dollars worth of household and kitchen furniture, belonging to each family in this State, shall be exempt from taxation." Section 2 prohibits taxation of schools, religious places of worship, nonprofit places of burial, institutions of public charity, and public property used for public purposes.

Finally, Article VIII specifies procedural and institutional requirements related to property assessment and tax collection. Property is assessed and taxes collected in each county where the property is located, or (in the case of "unorganized" counties) in the county to which that county is attached for judicial purposes.

constitutional amendments usually need more support for passage than ordinary statutory laws do. Article XVII of the Texas Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, requires a two-step process of proposal and ratification. To be proposed, an amendment must receive support from two-thirds of all members in each chamber of the legislature. To be ratified, a proposed amendment must receive the support of a simple majority of citizens voting in a popular election on a date to be specified by the legislature.
Piling all these amendments on an already lengthy core document leads to what might be referred to as "amendment chaining," or the need to pass still more amendments in response to earlier amendments. In other words, amendments beget amendments.
Legislators may also favor addressing certain issues in amendments rather than bills in order to sidestep a potential backlash from voters unhappy about perceived government expansion or new spending. For example, a 2013 plan to appropriate $2 billion from the state's Rainy Day Fund to finance water projects was sent to the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment (Proposition 6). The proposition passed despite opposition from some conservatives, and effectively allowed lawmakers to avoid taking direct legislative action that they personally may have deemed necessary but that also might have proved unpopular with some of their constituents.
The requirement that voters sort through and decide on numerous proposed amendments during each biennial special constitutional election causes a fair degree of public confusion, uncertainty, and even cynicism. One usually needs considerable education on the issues to cast an informed vote on an amendment on the ballot, which, in modern media-centered political campaigning, opens the door for powerful interests to wield considerable influence in shaping public opinion. Voters can feel simultaneously overwhelmed and uninformed, and the result is chronically low voter turnout.

Essential features of any constitution—disposition of property under previous legal systems (Spanish and Mexican land titles) and impeachment of public officers
Detailed organizational and policy specifications—articles on education, taxation and revenue, counties, municipal corporations, railroads, private corporations, and public lands and the land office
General provisions—a laundry list of items all contained in Article XVI (General Provisions) dealing with the legislature, personal debts, fences, competitive bidding on state contracts, and more

The Texas Constitution, originally ratified in 1876, is characterized by prominent limitations stemming from its length, complexity, wording, and organization. Yet the document is also a clear reflection of the era in which it was written. At that time, skepticism toward overactive government was dominant—and clearly on the minds of the constitution's framers as they sought to shape a government that met the needs of a frontier society in a large and complex state. Though it is just one of several moving parts of the Texas government (along with politicians, parties, and bureaucrats), the constitution alone lays the government's uniquely Texan foundation.

Despite the constitution's limitations and diminishing relevance to today's demographically and commercially diverse modern state, attempts at wholesale revision have met strong resistance. And despite widespread acknowledgment of the document's shortcomings, a majority of Texans still believe that the way Texas runs its government serves as a model for other states to follow.10

Central Ideas

The foundation for local government in Texas is rooted in a series of poorly written provisions scattered throughout the constitution.
Municipal governments fall into two categories, general law cities and home rule cities, with larger municipalities having home rule charters that spell out specific structures and powers.
County governments provide similar services to residents as cities do, but face more constraints on their powers and means of raising revenue.
Special districts are created to meet certain purposes, and they have proliferated in recent years as alternatives to contracting with other local governments.
But the events in Denton illustrate the centrality of local government to Texans' daily lives and how multiple important domains of politics and policy—citizen participation, local decision making, public safety, quality of life, private enterprise, and public health—take place on the plane of local government. The passage of the ban and its practical reversal by the legislature also highlights ongoing issues related to the powers of local government entities, especially their capacity to raise revenue and implement policy at the local level in the face of both rapid growth and resistance to increasing taxes at the state level.
This seeming slapdash treatment of local government results, at least in part, from three dynamics at work in the 1875 Constitutional Convention. First, the convention sought to accomplish its work in only a short time. Second, the framers sought to restrict the taxation and spending authority of government at all levels, including the local level. Finally, it seems evident that the framers frequently could not resist the impulse to detail even minute aspects of governance and policy.

Since 1875, the haphazard treatment of local government in the constitution has led to many changes and attempts to bring a degree of order to this situation as well as to respond to new conditions and requirements, such as the later creation of new entities known as councils of government. In general, however, the addition of specific provisions to the constitution has only compounded the problem. For example, Article IX contains sections that establish broad rules like those governing the creation of counties and the location of county seats. But it also contains sections that create specific hospital districts in the city of Amarillo and in rural Comanche County.

Cities perform the greatest number of governmental functions among the units of local government, including police and fire protections, health and sanitation services, street design and maintenance, transportation systems, land use regulation, and more. Cities may also perform functions that are considered proprietary: owning and operating public utilities (like water and electric power), owning entertainment facilities (like stadiums), and managing activities that are considered dangerous or extremely hazardous (like hazardous waste collection and disposal).

Counties serve the dual purposes of providing government services to residents, such as constructing and maintaining roads and operating jails and courts, as well as carrying out administrative services on behalf of the state, such as voter registration and marriage licenses.

Special districts are single-purpose governmental entities that usually perform only one function, such as administering education (the most common), supplying water, or operating a hospital.

Councils of government are voluntary, area-wide associations of local government commissions made up of local elected officials representing participating local governments. They are legally considered political subdivisions of the state but cannot levy taxes or incur debt. There are 24 regional councils of government in Texas, most of them created to deal with regional policy issues and planning needs that reach across political boundaries of local governments, such as transportation, law enforcement training, and regional economic development.

The Texas Municipal League (TML) is a statewide organization that provides services to cities, including representing their interests before other levels of government. In a 2015 document produced for its members, the TML promoted the role of city government as follows:

Texas cities provide police and fire protection, the roads we drive on, local business development, the utilities we need to survive and prosper, the protection of property values through thoughtful rules that benefit everyone, and much more.
about 75 percent of all Texas cities are general law cities, a category that does not include the major metropolitan centers like Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. The constitution classifies all cities with less than 5,000 inhabitants as "chartered by general law," and limits their ability to levy taxes to 1.5 percent of the taxable property of the city. As a result of these rules, most of the general law cities are smaller municipalities of less than 5,000 inhabitants. They are governed by state laws passed by the legislature to apply to cities that have not adopted home rule charters. Most of these laws are found in the Local Government Code, a body of statutes organized in an attempt to centralize most (though not all) laws governing local governments. Thus all of the powers exercised by these governments, and all prohibitions upon them, are spelled out in existing state laws.

Municipal Organization

The residents of a city are free to decide their own governmental structure as long as the established system complies with the Voting Rights Act—that is, as long as it complies with federal laws meant to ensure fair and non-discriminatory voting and elections. Citizens may determine their own form of municipal government, the size of their city council and how that council is elected, the terms of office of elected officials, and the means of electing a mayor. They also have discretion over the city's administrative structure and the formation of boards and commissions related to city government and its operation.

Annexation

Cities are allowed to annex adjoining unincorporated areas into the city unilaterally, as there are no state laws prohibiting such annexation. Annexation powers provide cities with an important tool for planning for growth and land development by adding areas while also establishing rules for land use. Annexation further permits a city to add economic resources and to increase a city's tax base, and it remains one of the central inherent powers exercised by cities in Texas.

Initiative, Referendum, and Recall

Local voters in home rule cities are able to use initiative, referendum, and recall to directly exercise lawmaking power in specific situations. These tools are unique to city government, as Texas (unlike some other states) does not have provisions for voters to exercise these powers at the level of state government. Petitions represent the most common entryway for direct citizen participation in city government, providing a means of bypassing elected officials in order to initiate changes resisted, ignored, or otherwise unmet by officeholders.

An initiative is a legislative proposal delivered as a petition signed by city residents. If the petition receives the number of legitimate signatures required by a city's charter, the city council may either adopt the measure itself or put it on the ballot to be approved or rejected by the voters in the next election. The fracking ban in Denton discussed in the opening section of this chapter originated as a voter initiative.
A referendum is a direct effort to repeal an existing ordinance. The procedure for holding a referendum is usually the same as or similar to a city's initiative requirements, requiring some number of validated signatures on a petition calling for repeal of a disliked measure, then providing for either the council to repeal the measure or the city to hold an election in which voters decide whether to repeal the measure.
Recall is a similarly citizen-initiated process for removing members of the city council prior to the expiration of their term in office. It begins with a citizen filing an affidavit with the city naming the elected official to be recalled and the reason for seeking to remove them. Petition forms are then issued with a deadline for collecting the required number of verifiable signatures. Once the petition forms have been verified by a city official designated in the city charter, a recall election is scheduled. If the recall wins a majority of votes cast, the elected official is recalled and a new election held to fill the vacated seat.
Charter Amendments

In addition to initiative, referendum, and recall, local voters can also engage in direct lawmaking by proposing amendments to the city charter itself. This process is analogous to adding amendments to a state or national constitution. Texas's Local Government Code provides for citizens to propose a charter amendment that must be put before the voters by filing a petition signed by 20,000 qualified voters or five percent of the city's total qualified voters, whichever is less. For example, voters in Austin approved a charter amendment in the 2012 general election that replaced the city council elected in at-large elections with a larger city council consisting of ten members who are each elected from a single-member district. Most charters also provide for a process whereby the city council may initiate charter revisions as well.

Most municipal governments in Texas take three forms: mayor-council government, council-manager government, and commission government. In all of these systems, the mayor is elected in at-large elections in which all eligible voters in the city limits may vote for a candidate. Most city councils are elected from single-member council districts, though there are still a small number of cities that rely on at-large elections for council members.
Mayor-council governments come in two variations. In a strong mayor-council government, the mayor tends to exercise an array of executive powers, such as appointment and removal of department heads and members of major boards and commissions, preparation of the city budget and the power to implement it, and a significant salary in order to ensure the city has a full-time, professional mayor. The mayor also often has the ability to veto actions of the city council. Broadly speaking, in strong mayor-council systems, the mayor resembles an executive and the council functions like a legislative branch, with little or no executive or administrative duties.
Weak mayor-council governments are very rare among home rule cities. In such systems, the powers of the mayor are very limited. The mayor may be selected by the council rather than directly elected, and may receive minimal compensation. The city council exercises authority over appointments and removals, which further diminishes the power of the weak mayor.

In council-manager governments, which are common in home rule cities, all or most administrative duties are placed in the hands of a city manager. City managers are usually hired for indefinite terms and subject to dismissal by the city council at any time. City managers function somewhat like the chief executive officer (CEO) of a corporation. They are responsible for overseeing the day-to-day functioning of the city, including the municipal workforce, the relations of the city with agencies and departments such as emergency services, and the efficient operation of government. In such systems, the mayor is frequently a member of the city council, with many of the administrative responsibilities mayors hold in strong mayor-council systems transferred to the city manager. The city council is not responsible for administrative duties related to the functioning of government, but focuses on setting policy and approving the budget.

Commission governments, found in general law cities, are governed by an elected board of commissioners that is almost always made up of a mayor and a set of commissioners, the number of which depends on whether the city has been divided into geographic areas called wards. This form of government is typically found in small cities that have not adopted a mayor-council form of government.

Cities have two main sources of revenue, which arise from the limited power to levy taxes granted to them by the constitution. Property tax and sales tax revenue together make up almost 60 percent of municipal revenues in cities across the state, according to the Texas Municipal League.
Cities are allowed by law to consider a maximum of 2 percent in total local sales taxes for purposes that include economic development, crime control, property tax relief, and street maintenance.
The city tax rate is set by the city council.
As real estate values in many Texas cities have risen in recent years, property tax bills have risen with those values. Property taxes are also used to pay for community colleges, school districts, and other special districts, adding to rising tax bills for payers of property tax. This has led to increasing pressure at both the state and local levels to find ways to reduce property taxes by increasing other sources of revenue, cutting spending, or both. It has also led to periodic efforts by state leaders to adjust state laws in ways that reduce property tax bills.
City utilities like water, sewage, and power also bring in revenue, though cities with municipally owned electric utilities bring in much more revenue than those without. Other smaller but still important sources of funding include license and permit fees, fines, federal grants, hotel and tourist fees, and user fees for city facilities. The extent to which municipal governments depend on such sources of revenue can vary a great deal; a city with a substantial tourist trade, for example, can generate revenues through hotel and facility taxes that won't be available to a city that has little attraction for tourists but operates its own utilities and thus generates income by selling those services.
The largest budget items for cities are public safety and emergency services: funding for police departments, fire departments, and emergency services. Other large single expenditures include the services that make up the fabric of city life—streets, transportation, municipal courts, parks, and libraries.

The list of things that cities spend money on underlines the centrality of municipal government in the day-to-day lives of people who live and work in cities. City governments, especially the home rule cities that are home to millions of Texans, allow for citizen input into decision making at the local level while providing fundamental services and infrastructure.

County governments provide a wide range of services to residents and act as an arm of state government when performing a set of tasks. Their primary roles on behalf of the state are to administer county, state, and national elections. Counties also provide record-keeping services such as recording births, marriages, and deaths; registering motor vehicles; recording land titles and deeds; and collecting some state taxes and fees. They further have optional powers, similar to those of cities, to build and maintain roads as well as libraries, parks, and recreational facilities. The 254 counties in Texas do not have home rule like the large cities and thus cannot create charters that give them latitude to write ordinances, find additional sources of funding, or establish new programs to address their problems. They cannot pass ordinances without the intervention of the legislature and therefore remain constrained by the strictures found scattered throughout the Texas Constitution, Local Government Code, and laws of the state. County responsibilities can be found in at least nine additional codes in the body of Texas laws.
Counties find themselves both weak by design and bound by uniform laws that must apply to vastly different circumstances. The same laws define and constrain the capabilities of the major metropolitan counties that are home to Texas's biggest cities, with millions of residents, as well as the sparsely populated counties of rural Texas whose residents may number in the hundreds—or even less. Another consequence of this uniformity is that counties all have the same basic structure and organization.

The governing body of a county is the commissioners court, which is made up of the county judge and four county commissioners; the county judge is elected countywide, while the individual commissioners are elected by the qualified voters of geographical districts called commissioners' precincts. All serve four-year terms.

Despite its name, the commissioners court is not a judicial body. The county judge presides over the commissioners court and performs (or, in larger counties, oversees) administrative functions including supervising election-related activities, assembling a revenue estimate and budget proposal, and other financial responsibilities.

Seven additional county officials are elected countywide by voters: the clerk, the sheriff, the constable, the treasurer, the county attorney, the justice of the peace, and the tax assessor. Their roles are briefly discussed in the table below.

Office Description When Would You See This Person?
Constable Serves as an authorized peace officer. Constables look like regular sheriffs or police officers but focus on collecting fines, serving warrants, and assisting in court proceedings of the county.
County Attorney Acts as the chief legal advisor to the county. The county attorney is the chief prosecutor in some counties. Her job is similar and may overlap with the District Attorney.
County Clerk Acts as clerk, election official, and a recorder. Also issues marriage licenses. The county clerk plays a big role in making elections happen. She also maintains records for county courts and pays jurors who serve in those courts. In addition, she maintains birth and death certificates, deeds, and even cattle brands.
County Judge Serves as the chief executive officer of the county. The county judge is the presiding officer of the commissioners court and the judge of the county court.
County Tax Assessor-Collector Assesses and collects taxes on property in the county for the county, among other things. This official collects property taxes on your home and will register you to vote. Also, your local bars pay him a permit fee to serve alcohol.
County Treasurer Primary tasks include the receipt and disbursement of funds. The treasurer is the bank and the bank teller for the county. It's his job to keep the county money organized and cataloged.
District Attorney Primarily an attorney for the state. The DA is a state attorney who attends state district courts. He may also represent the state when the Attorney General is not available.
District Clerk Keeps records and manages finances for the district court. This district clerk keeps the records of all district court proceedings and fines paid in the county. (If you win or lose, she catalogs it.) If you serve jury duty in district court, it's also her job to get you paid for that service.
Justice of the Peace Serves as presiding officer of the justice court and conducts marriage ceremonies. An officer of the court, the JP hears some court cases as well as serves warrants, administers oaths, and conducts marriages.
Sheriff Responsible for operating the county jails, investigating crimes, and coordinating with other law enforcement agencies. In addition to maintaining law and order, the sheriff also ov

The primary overall responsibilities of the commissioners court include:

the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges that are not part of the state highway system;
managing county personnel, including filling vacancies in county offices;
creating some offices, boards, and commissions as authorized by statute, including county historical commissions, the office of county fire marshal, a health authority, and others;
providing buildings and operating facilities for the county;
bonding authority to issue financial obligations of the county (bonds) for certain purposes, and managing the debts that result from bonding;
general fiscal and business responsibility, including contracting;
conducting elections;
responsibility for public health and welfare, which include social services, libraries, and parks and recreation;
judicial operations such as jails and related services, including juvenile services; and
public works related to water supply, irrigation and drainage, waste disposal, clean air, and agriculture.

The limits placed on the ability of local governments to generate revenue through taxation has led to greater borrowing in recent years, especially in major urban areas experiencing significant growth. Both cities and counties have found themselves subject to mounting criticism, particularly from fiscal conservatives in state government, over the rising level of local government debt in Texas. For cities, borrowing money for projects by issuing bonds has become a more attractive option as political resistance to taxes has increased. As a result, the amount of local government debt has grown dramatically, as the table below illustrates.
Cities have been particularly subject to ballooning levels of debt—a result, in part, of the latitude home rule gives to cities to undertake policy initiatives that can be paid for by issuing bonds with voter approval. In 2015, for example, the May general elections in cities across Texas saw a wealth of bond proposals scheduled to go before the voters for city projects ranging from street and sidewalk improvements to a zoo, aquatic facilities, a senior citizen center, and funds for the performing arts.

Municipal bonds are obligations to repay money, plus interest, that investors effectively loan to cities by buying the bonds. It is possible for individuals to buy bonds directly, but more typically bonds circulate as part of a fund or set of holdings managed by institutional investors. Cities may issue general obligation bonds that are backed by the taxing authority of the city, or they may issue revenue bonds, which are backed by the potential revenue generated by the specific project being funded (such as a toll bridge or power plant). There is a market for bond issues because they are generally insured and often exempt from federal taxes. This makes them low risk and attractive to investors.

Those who defend both specific projects and the general use of city and county bonding authority argue that cities face big challenges in meeting local government needs. State government spending for local projects is limited by both scarcity and politics, and federal funding is similarly difficult to obtain. As their ability to raise funds via taxation or obtain money from other levels of government has decreased, they argue, the needs of cities and counties have nevertheless increased as Texas's population has boomed. Borrowing money can be done responsibly, such defenders say, and is often their only option.

.
Cover page of a 2012 report issued by the Texas comptroller of public accounts
Critics of increasing debt locally argue that the trend in local government borrowing is raising debt to dangerous levels, and is being done with the approval of very few voters in low-turnout elections. This was the gist of a 2012 report issued by the comptroller's office when it was occupied by Susan Combs (who declined to run for reelection in 2014 and was replaced by Glen Hegar). The report noted that local government debt had more than doubled between 2001 and 2011, from $86.7 billion to $192.7. It tellingly pictured a slightly frowning child bearing a sign that read "will work to pay public debt," and warned repeatedly that voters were uninformed about the amount of debt and the threat that unchecked local government debt might pose to future generations.2

Whatever one's position on the issue, the undeniable increase in local debt underlines not only the centrality of city and county governments in Texans' lives but also the difficult positions in which local governments find themselves. They are charged with performing multiple important tasks, but must do so within complex legal strictures and with state legislators and other officials looking over their shoulders and placing limits on their ability to govern. Cities have more latitude than counties in coping with this situation. But the 2012 comptroller's cry to clamp down on local debt signaled that the government-limiting impulse that infuses the Texas Constitution also creates pressure constraining the latitude of local governments—pressure that can even be exerted using state government.

Formerly rural areas in the outer reaches of Houston, the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex, San Antonio, and Austin have become part of a new form of regional development referred to as the exurbs, where the characteristics of suburban development such as large planned residential housing tracts and service-based local economies are spreading to small towns and rural areas. These newer developments tend to be some distance away from the cities where many of their residents now work; examples might include rapidly growing areas of the state like Frisco outside of Dallas or in Williamson County north of Austin.3
Special districts have played a key role in facilitating this pattern of development. The Texas Constitution permits the creation of special districts for limited purposes. It authorizes such districts to issue bonds and to levy taxes to pay off the principal and interest on such bonds. Generally they are governed by the commissioners court that has jurisdiction over the county in which the district is located. Other powers and duties for special districts (as with so many other areas of local government) are established in other statutes scattered across the body of state codes, and the Texas Legislature has been attempting to systematize the different means of creating different types of districts since the Special District Local Laws Code was created in 2003.
Each of the more than 40 types of special districts listed in a recent report by the comptroller on special districts requires special procedures for creation. For example, hospital districts can be created by the Texas Legislature upon the petition of 100 residents of the proposed region submitted to a county judge, then confirmed by a simple majority in an election held among residents in the area of the proposed district. Municipal utility districts, to take another common example, are initiated by a petition to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The petition must be signed by persons holding a majority in value of the land, or at least 50 persons owning title to land, in the proposed district. The TCEQ then determines whether it will grant the petition and create the district.4

Such special-purpose districts are primarily a response to urban sprawl—the spread of urban residential and commercial development across areas adjacent to the core areas of cities. As previously sparsely populated areas become more urbanized, the residents of these suburban areas require services like education, firefighting, road construction, and water. Special districts have thus multiplied as urban sprawl has created spread-out populations requiring services in areas beyond the immediate reach of city or county government, as the table below illustrates.
The most common special-purpose districts are school districts, hospital districts, and entities formed to provide sewage, drainage, and other services related to water management. To use one of many possible examples, the North Austin Municipal Utility District #1 was created in the mid-2000s to provide utilities and other services including the maintenance of parks and pools for a set of residential subdivisions constructed in a previously undeveloped area that overlaps the Williamson-Travis County line. The district continues to levy property taxes and manage debt service as well as to contract for water and wastewater services and trash collection.5

The most familiar examples of special districts are independent school districts (ISDs). A school district may be created by submitting a petition proposing such a district within specified boundaries, signed by at least 10 percent of the registered voters within the proposed district, to the county judge. A majority of voters in the district must then vote in favor of creating the district. A school district may also be created by separating territory from an existing district and annexing it to an adjacent district. The Education Code establishes that an ISD must be governed by a board—the entity we commonly refer to as a school board—of three, five, or seven trustees who are elected to three- or four-year terms.

School districts also rely on property taxes as their local funding source, though district finances are also shaped by a complex formula meant to ensure that all schools and districts receive roughly equal funding. The state periodically has been sued for failing to fund schools equally and adequately, and is in the midst of such a suit at this writing.

Another major type of education-related district is the community college district. The creation of community college districts is controlled by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). To form a community college district, a steering committee must be formed to circulate a petition to be signed by not less than 10 percent of the qualified voters in the proposed district. The THECB then must approve the request in order to authorize an election in the district in which a majority of those voting much approve the creation of the district. The district is then overseen by a governing board that sets tuition and other rates and fees. In addition to generating revenue through tuition and fees, these districts may also raise money via property taxes.

Municipal Utility Districts

The use of municipal utility districts (MUDs) has increased in recent years as a means of providing services in areas under development for residential and commercial use. While the basic purpose of these districts is to provide services to areas where city and county services like water and power are not available, MUDs have become a common way for people developing land to finance infrastructure development.

Most of the MUDs currently existing in Texas were established over undeveloped land. MUDs are granted the authority to issue tax-exempt municipal bonds. These bonds are essentially loans with an obligation of repayment (with interest) to holders of those bonds. The district then is empowered to pay back the bondholders by using its power to levy taxes on all taxable property in the MUD, as well as to charge monthly water and sewer fees to pay for the costs of operating the system. Though basic utility infrastructure is often the focus of the formation of a MUD, these districts also have the option of providing a wide range of other services such as emergency and public safety services (police, fire, and EMS), health services, libraries, and public recreational facilities such as parks. Upon approval by the required authorities, MUDs are governed by an elected board of directors and subject to oversight by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

The extensive use of MUDs has led to a debate over their benefits and shortcomings. On the positive side, defenders of the use of MUDs point out that they lower the costs of infrastructure development and encourage quality. By spreading out the repayment of costs over the longer period of time in which the district is paying off the bonds, MUDs also lower the costs of property and homes to consumers. Critics of the extensive use of MUDs see them as ways of sidestepping urban development rules and regulations. They also point to the fact that because MUDs are typically limited in size and scale, they frequently have higher operating costs. The formation of MUDs by individual landowners or developers has also frequently caused conflicts with local residents over the use of land and water resources, because once formed by small groups of owners, there is less electoral and administrative accountability to the county government where the MUD is formed (and to adjacent cities). Critics have further suggested that MUDs and similar special districts have become means of increasing the tax burden of citizens while avoiding the negative attention received by attempts to increase taxes and government revenue at the state level, thus becoming a kind of hidden or "invisible" government.

Overall, special districts serve an important purpose in creating ways of financing and managing public enterprises, from large and familiar activities like public education and utilities to more obscure tasks like controlling mosquitos (there are, in fact, 13 special-purpose districts formed for mosquito control). They have added to the patchwork of rules and authority that constitute local government in Texas as they have proliferated along with growth in the state. That proliferation has also become part of a newly energized discussion about where authority should rest on policy issues and how government should be funded, both at the state and local levels.

The constitution and statutes of Texas create a network of local governments that have a fundamental and direct relationship with Texas citizens, albeit a relationship that is structured by an array of provisions scattered across the body of laws in the state. Counties remain hemmed in by state laws that create a latticework of provisions that must be applied to 254 counties with very different population levels and characteristics, while Texas cities have used home rule provisions to exercise a comparatively greater degree of local decision making over both the organization of their local governing institutions and, consequently, over the policies that affect their lives. The many special districts provide the means to accomplish specific purposes, from public education to establishing local libraries. The increasing reliance upon them, however, raises questions about cost and whether they are the best vehicles for providing accountability and effectiveness in the long run.

The fracking ban passed in Denton in 2014 and the state's response to it are better illuminated now that we've explored the basic elements of local government in Texas. The passage of the ban by the city's voters marked the culmination of unsuccessful efforts on the part of anti-fracking activists to gain the support of the members of the city council. Dissatisfied with the council's response, they used the initiative process contained in the city's home rule charter to get the measure on the ballot. But the Texas Legislature's sweeping reversal of the Denton ban, which prevented other local governments from implementing similar bans, illustrates how the powers of local government, even those with home rule, can be limited by state legislators. The ongoing political discussion about issues like the Denton ban and the increasing reliance on public debt by local governments suggest that the patchwork of legal provisions defining the role of local government will continue to be cobbled together as a result of changes implemented in the state legislature.

Which of the following describes the political culture of Texas?

What kind of political culture does Texas have quizlet?

Which of the following is the best description of Texas political culture quizlet?

What best describes Texas's dominant political culture today quizlet?