Thread: Grassroots push for English in Texas

We have started a tiny attempt at making English the official language of the great nation of Texas. I have cannibalized the amendment used by Arizona on its November 7 ballot, with a few Texas changes. We have spoken to several state senate and rep offices to seek support. Those we have contacted have asked for us to send them a copy. Rep Harvey Hilderbran received his today. Tomorrow, I will deliver state senator Kip Averritt his copy. Reps Jim Keffer, Leo Berman, and Speaker Tom Craddick will also receive a copy. We'll have to see. Berman is introducing several bills next year against illegal immigration, but none discuss English as the official language. He said he would not allow it as an amendment on his bills, but wanted to see it as a separate bill.
I've never written a bill, nor am I a lawmaker, though I like to play one on blog sites, but I hope this works. Support from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by TyRANTosaur

We have started a tiny attempt at making English the official language of the great nation of Texas. I have cannibalized the amendment used by Arizona on its November 7 ballot, with a few Texas changes. We have spoken to several state senate and rep offices to seek support. Those we have contacted have asked for us to send them a copy. Rep Harvey Hilderbran received his today. Tomorrow, I will deliver state senator Kip Averritt his copy. Reps Jim Keffer, Leo Berman, and Speaker Tom Craddick will also receive a copy. We'll have to see. Berman is introducing several bills next year against illegal immigration, but none discuss English as the official language. He said he would not allow it as an amendment on his bills, but wanted to see it as a separate bill.
I've never written a bill, nor am I a lawmaker, though I like to play one on blog sites, but I hope this works. Support from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

Good luck and God bless.

I hope this can give you an idea, but it may depend on the type of bill.
Joseph Turner initiated the proposal for an ordinance to ban landlords from renting to Illegals, althought it was rejected by the City Coucil, Hazleton, Pa. picked up onit. Turner is the founder of www.saveourstate.com. you may find his email address on that site.
info@saveourstateri.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiative Process

While close to 775 initiatives have been filed in our state since the law enabling their use was enacted in 1913, the actual number that have been certified and then adopted is much less. However, some recent trends have caused an increasing number of lawmakers and organizations to have strong concerns with the initiative process.

During the last decade, voters approved several initiatives that had major impacts on the fiscal management of state and local governments. I-601 established spending limitations on the state budget. I-695 essentially repealed a previously approved referendum (R-49) and removed a major revenue source for state and local governments. Even though 695 was found to be unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court on the grounds it contained more than one subject, the legislature enacted a statute that mirrored the initiative. I-728 mandated that money be allocated to reduce class sizes in public schools statewide. I-732 established a set formula for increasing the salaries of public school teachers. I-722, approved by the voters in 2000, placed limitations on the growth of property tax revenue, but it now faces the same constitutional challenge in the courts as that faced by 695.

Several years ago, voters approved a measure to annually raise the minimum wages statewide, using the increase in the Consumer Price Index for the Seattle market as the basis. This has been particularly burdensome to small businesses (e.g. restaurants, agricultural enterprises, etc.). In 2000, voters negatively impacted the agricultural industry by outlawed the trapping of animals.

Two cottage industries have also emerged in the past several years. Companies now circulate throughout the state (and particularly the Puget Sound area) with their hired employees gathering signatures at a rate that now approaches $2.50 per signature. And, other entities have surfaced to promote initiatives.

Since 1997, close to forty proposals have been introduced to the legislature. Many of them were attempts to address the growing concern with paid signature gatherers. Others addressed the concern that voters need additional information regarding initiatives and the initiatives themselves should receive increased scrutiny before they come to the voters. Finally, several measures addressed the geographical distribution of signatures.

AWB Positions

Require that a fair or equal percentage of valid signatures on initiatives be obtained from specified areas (e. g. Congressional Districts) in the state.
Require that initiatives deemed to require increased expenditures identify the revenue sources (taxes, fees, cuts in programs) that are necessary for implementation.
Require a super majority, or at least 55%, for the passage of initiatives deemed to have a fiscal impact.
n Require that independent analyses and information on the financial impacts of initiatives be conducted -- similar to legislative fiscal notes.
Require an independent legal opinion be rendered on the constitutionality of an initiative before it appears on the ballot.
Require an independent legal opinion be rendered on the constitutionality of an initiative before it appears on the ballot.