Proposition G: Qualifications for Office – Unintended Loopholes?

Proposition G proposes changes to Section 3.03 of the Harker Heights Charter, removing the tax arrearage disqualification for public officials to align with federal and state law. However, the new wording raises questions about whether it unintentionally limits the city’s ability to enforce other disqualifications under state law or the city’s code of ordinances.

Key Issues:

• Ambiguous Wording Could Limit Accountability: The new language states that officials “shall not be disqualified by reason of provisions of any other section of this charter or state law.” This phrasing could imply that no disqualifications can be enforced, even those required by state law. If interpreted broadly, it could undermine accountability by preventing valid disqualifications based on legal or ethical violations.
• No Recent Case Law Requires This Change: The amendment claims to align with federal case law, but this is misleading. Cases like Turner v. Fouche (1970) have long held that financial status alone cannot be used to disqualify candidates, but this is not new legal precedent. The amendment may create confusion by suggesting this change is driven by recent developments when the principles behind it are decades old.
• Core Qualifications Maintained – But Is That Enough? The amendment keeps essential requirements:
  • U.S. citizenship
  • Qualified voter status in Texas
  • Residency within Harker Heights
  • Immediate removal for felony convictions or failure to meet qualifications
  However, it remains unclear if the new language inadvertently restricts the enforcement of other state-mandated disqualifications, such as conflicts of interest or ethical violations.

Why Vote NO on Proposition G:

• Demand Clear Language: The charter should clearly outline which disqualifications apply and allow for enforcement of valid legal and ethical standards. The current wording leaves too much room for interpretation, which could lead to unintended loopholes.
• Preserve Accountability: Removing the tax arrearage clause is reasonable, but the amendment should not weaken other accountability mechanisms. Public officials must be held to high standards, and relying solely on vague state law references could make enforcement more difficult.

Conclusion: Vote NO on Proposition G to Ensure Clear Accountability

Proposition G, as written, introduces ambiguity that could limit the city’s ability to enforce disqualifications required by law or ethical standards. While aligning with legal precedent is important, the amendment must provide clear, enforceable rules to maintain public trust. Voting NO will send a message that clarity and accountability are essential in public office qualifications.

For more information, visit the official Harker Heights Election Page.