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 against it? The supporters of proposition 3, claimed that the law is not relevant anymore for the fact that now it is faster to travel as well as the technology we have, makes communicating and getting information to one another easy ().
…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 (). I feel that the people that supported proposition 3 either have their families living far from the capital and do not want their job to interfere with family life or the individual wants to live in a legislative district that he or she might want to represent. I also think that the people that were against it were older. The reason that I think that is because older people are more comfortable speaking with people face to face or dealing with problems personally and not doing things through the use of technology. They might also have more conservative views, thus being less acceptable to change. Personally, I believe that proposition 3 is a great idea. The reason being that it will help the individuals maintain their family in the town or city they see is best for them, as well as allow them to be with their families instead of leaving them for the period they are in office; for the fact that they have to live in the capital to keep that position. The law that says that those individuals have to live in the capital are outdated. Now we have plenty of technology that allows us to send or receive information at the push of a button and
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 (). I feel that the people that supported proposition 3 either have their families living far from the capital and do not want their job to interfere with family life or the individual wants to live in a legislative district that he or she might want to represent. I also think that the people that were against it were older. The reason that I think that is because older people are more comfortable speaking with people face to face or dealing with problems personally and not doing things through the use of technology. They might also have more conservative views, thus being less acceptable to change. Personally, I believe that proposition 3 is a great idea. The reason being that it will help the individuals maintain their family in the town or city they see is best for them, as well as allow them to be with their families instead of leaving them for the period they are in office; for the fact that they have to live in the capital to keep that position. The law that says that those individuals have to live in the capital are outdated. Now we have plenty of technology that allows us to send or receive information at the push of a button and