When the current state constitution was adopted in 1876, Texas was a rural, frontier state. With limited communication and transportation systems, a centralized government was not feasible, and county government was a necessity. The framers relied upon locally elected officials to provide essential governmental services, such as law enforcement, courts, public records, roads, education, and welfare. County officials were expected to provide these services in an efficient manner and were directly accountable to the local voters. The legislature was limited to biennial sessions to implement necessarily-statewide policies for criminal statutes, prisons, and appellate courts. Local officials provided daily access to governmental services for the citizens; state officials served on a part-time basis.
As the population increased and needs for services evolved, changes were implemented to improve and equalize certain functions. A state agency was formed to regulate railroads, the principal means of transporting materials and people. To assure equal access, the state assumed more responsibility for funding public education and welfare. As automobiles and trucks became the dominant means of transportation, a state highway system was implemented to supplement the 80,000 miles of county roads. While these adjustments increased the responsibility of state government, most essential services continued to be provided and funded by county government. The state leadership continued to recognize and endorse local control and the value and efficiency of local decision-making. As population centers developed, separate issues arose between urban and rural areas. However, local solutions continued to be encouraged with local leaders responsible for their implementation. The leaders of both political parties embraced limited state government and the independence of local government.
However, the last 20 years have seen a dramatic shift in the policies and attitudes at the state level. As the political arena has become dominated by social issues, the debate and response to these issues has become centered in the state legislature. The practical, efficient solutions advocated by local officials have been relegated to the sidelines. With the increased cost of campaigns and advent of social media, powerful special interest groups and wealthy donors have imposed their agenda on the legislative process. Using their influence over the limited participants in the March primaries and gerrymandered districts, these motivated advocates have demanded strict loyalty from the legislature. Those legislators who have not acquiesced to these demands have faced fierce personal and political attacks. These tactics leave scant room for seeking the advice of experienced local leaders and the development of reasonable solutions.
This movement toward “one-size-fits-all” policies and a “my way or no way” attitude has created a difficult environment at the state legislature for local governments. Intent upon establishing a reputation for limited taxation while continuing to dictate support for their priorities, the legislature has imposed revenue caps on county government below the inflation rate while mandating the use of local taxes for indigent health care, indigent defense, CPS cases, mental health inmates, and other state responsibilities. While bankrolling record state revenues, the increased costs for state-mandated services have been shifted to the local property taxpayers. With discussion dominated by legislation to determine which books will be allowed in the local library, which bathrooms will be used by whom, and which subjects will be taught, the per-pupil state funding for public education has not been increased in five years.
When confronted by the lack of responsible action on state issues, some legislators protest that they are responding to “their people.” Unfortunately, “their people” may only include large donors and special interest groups. When local officials and their nonprofit associations attempt to inquire about other needs, they are labeled “taxpayer-funded lobbyists” and face proposed legislation to bar their communications with the legislature.
With the legislature in session, county officials cannot be silent or timid. Special interests are actively seeking to impose their agendas and reduce the discretion and independence of county officials. Your voices are often the only unbiased viewpoints in the process. Please continue to advise your legislators on the value and importance of local decision-making. Only your active support can preserve this foundation of county government.