Texas House Bill HJR177

Texas 2023 - 88th Regular

• Filed: 3/9/23

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment requiring the secretary of state to be elected by the qualified voters at a general election instead of appointed by the governor.

Impact

If passed, HJR177 would fundamentally alter sections of the Texas Constitution that define the powers and selection processes of state officials. This change would potentially increase public engagement in state governance and could lead to greater scrutiny and accountability of the Secretary of State's office. Additionally, it could inspire similar reforms across other state positions, promoting a trend towards direct electoral accountability in government roles.

Summary

HJR177 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to change the method of selecting the Secretary of State in Texas from being appointed by the governor to being elected by the qualified voters during general elections. The aim of this proposed amendment is to enhance democratic accountability and reflect the will of the electorate in what is considered a significant state position. This amendment suggests that voters should have a direct say in the election of the Secretary of State, which is a deviation from historical precedent where the position has been predominantly appointed.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HJR177 appears to be mixed among legislators and the public. Supporters argue that electing the Secretary of State empowers voters and strengthens democratic practices within the state. On the other hand, some critics express concerns about politicizing an office that has traditionally operated on a more administrative and nonpartisan basis. They worry that an election could lead to fluctuations in policy direction and prioritize political interests over the necessary continuity of governance.

Contention

Key points of contention in the discussions around HJR177 focus on the implications of choosing an elected official for the Secretary of State. Opponents caution that this shift may lessen the ability to maintain a neutral and unbiased office, as candidates may be tempted to cater to partisan interests to secure votes. Furthermore, there are concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of office operations if political considerations become predominant in decision-making. Overall, the debate encapsulates broader discussions on governance and the balance between accountability and operational integrity.