One argument I have met when stating my goal is to get the question of abolition of the office for which I am running on the ballot is "do you have any idea what that will cost?", "that will require a Constitutional amendment, are you aware of the expense?".

Yes, I am aware the abolition of any obsolete office from the ballot does bear a price, I am also aware retaining the office on the ballot has a price to be paid sooner or later.

When I ran for and won the office of Nacogdoches County Public Weigher I was clear to the voters that should I be elected I would work to get the question of the abolition of this office on the ballot for the voters to decide.

The Commissioner's Court at first said they could not put me on the agenda because I refused to comply with a law (discussed elsewhere on this site) I had determined would violate constitutional protections of my speaking my political opinion freely. Later the commissioners thought they could abolish my office without need of the voters, but found the law had been changed and would require the voters decide, so the commissioners decided to do nothing.

Their argument? Yep, "it would cost too much to allow this on the ballot", They would not even allow the question on the agenda to be discussed in court session.

Being a realist I decided working on the abolition of the office in the future did not require I hold the office so I resigned and am now running for the office of County Treasurer. In 1987 the legislature made this office obsolete by requiring all counties with a population of over 10,000 must have a County Auditor with stringent accounting requirements, County Treasurer is a purely political office with only requirements of age and residency, not ability.

I realize I will have problems getting this question before the voters, I may not depend on the co-operation of the legislature as government employees and public officers are generally against down-sizing government, some cannot conceive of making a living in the private sector. So it will be our duty to encourage the legislators to make the right choice as my election should it be, would be a mandate of the voters to put this question on the ballot so they may have a voice in the size of their government.

I say "our duty" for even though it would take a majority of the vote to be put in this office I would be seen as an individual and not as representing the will of many if the voters become silent. Our collective voices will not be easily ignored, for these officers would not wish to turn the voters against them.

Return to Articles Index