Does it make sense for people to follow laws that were established more than a hundred years ago? The Texas Constitution of 1876, which is currently in use (Maxwell et al. 60), states in Article 4, section 23 that “the comptroller of public accounts, commissioner of the General Land Office, attorney general, and any statutory state officer who is elected statewide to reside at the state capital during their terms of office” (). In 2015 there was an amendment up for voting, Senate Joint Resolution 52 or proposition 3 by Senator Donna Campbell, which would repeal the fact that statewide elected officers have to live in the state capital (). The proposition was passed on November 3, 2015, with 66 percent of the votes for it. But what were the reasons that voters voted for it or
…show more content…
Unlike in 1876, when traveling took days and the only means of communication was through mail or telegraph. Another argument supporters had was that the cost of living in Austin, Texas, and the choice of school their children will attend might not be of the person 's standards or liking (). The supporters also argued that an official that might have represented a legislative district in the past might want to keep their local residency for the fact that they might want to seek an office that needs them to live in a specific district ().
The people that opposed proposition 3, argue that the people that chose to take those jobs know that they are required by law, to live in the capitol of Texas, as well that they are required to be in their agencies main office in order to do their job properly (). They also argued that if the heads of agencies were to live outside of the capitol, Texas taxpayers would have to pay for the frequent visits the officials take to the capitol
Unlike in 1876, when traveling took days and the only means of communication was through mail or telegraph. Another argument supporters had was that the cost of living in Austin, Texas, and the choice of school their children will attend might not be of the person 's standards or liking (). The supporters also argued that an official that might have represented a legislative district in the past might want to keep their local residency for the fact that they might want to seek an office that needs them to live in a specific district ().
The people that opposed proposition 3, argue that the people that chose to take those jobs know that they are required by law, to live in the capitol of Texas, as well that they are required to be in their agencies main office in order to do their job properly (). They also argued that if the heads of agencies were to live outside of the capitol, Texas taxpayers would have to pay for the frequent visits the officials take to the capitol