AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — Texans approved eight state constitutional amendments on Tuesday, including one that changes the state judiciary and another that insulates churches and religious groups from complying with government orders restricting gatherings.
Meanwhile, in Austin, voters shot down a proposition that would have put more police on the streets of the capital city.
Upset by restrictions limiting public gatherings last year during the pandemic, conservatives in the state pushed for Proposition 3, which adds language to the state Constitution to prohibit the state or a county, city, or other local government entity from enacting orders that limit religious services and organizations.
As of 11:45 p.m. Central time, an overwhelming 62% percent of Texans voted in favor of Prop. 3, with 37% voting against the measure.
Governor Abbott initally restricted public gatherings at the onset of the pandemic, but he reversed course when he made churches essential service providers. However, many religious freedom advocates raised concerns over future actions officials in the state may take to limit religious services.
Proponents argued the measure will further protect religious organizations from future orders that limit public gatherings.
Opponents to Prop. 3 saw the added protections as overly broad and unnecessary. They argued it allows churches to flout health mesureas that save lives and opens the door to places of worship being able to assert that any restriction, including a building code restriction, is an unwarranted limitation.
During the regular legislative session, lawmakers passed House Bill 1239, which restricted public officials from restricting religious services. With the passage of Prop. 3, this prohibition is expanded to all forms of political subdivisions in the state and codified in the state Constitution.
Voters in Texas also approved two propositions that will reshape judicial elections in the state.
Proposition 4 changes the eligibility requirements of candidates running for a judgeship. All candidates will be required to be a resident of the state, and the measure also mandates a minimum number of years required for individuals to run for specific positions on the bench. Candidates must have either practiced law or served as a judge for at least eight years to run for a district court position. An additional two years is required of candidates seeking a position on a court of appeal, the court of criminal appeals, or the Texas Supreme Court. Candidates who have had their license to practice law in the state suspended or revoked during their experience period are disqualified from running.
Opposition to Prop. 4 was largely from progressive groups who argued that it would make Texas’ judicial races less diverse because it would mean many of those eligible to run would be older.
At a polling location on the University of Texas at Austin campus, Eleanor Walter, president of the University Democrats, said that if Prop. 4 was passed a decade ago, the judges that are currently looking out for the interests of younger voters would not have been elected.
“Younger judges, minority judges, judges who have student interests at heart, those are the judges who will not get a seat under Prop. 4,” said Walter.
Supporters of Prop. 4 believe that judicial races will become less partisan and more based on the merit of judges’ legal careers and conduct.
Fifty-eight percent of voters approved of the changes to eligibility requirements, while 41% voted against them.





