The Science Behind the Question: An Analysis of the Texas Independence Referendum Question

The wording of a referendum question might seem like a technicality – a minor detail in the larger quest for Texas independence. However, history has shown that the specific language used to ask voters about independence can mean the difference between success and failure. As Texas moves closer to a vote on independence, getting the question right isn’t just important – it’s essential.

Recent history provides clear examples of both success and failure when it comes to independence referendum questions. In Quebec, confusing and biased questions in both their 1980 and 1995 independence referendums led to uncertainty among voters and ultimately contributed to their defeat. In contrast, Scotland’s 2014 referendum featured a clear, simple question that allowed voters to make an informed choice about their future, even though they ultimately chose to remain in the UK.

The academic research is clear: referendum questions must meet specific criteria to be considered legitimate and allow voters to make an informed choice. Through careful study of independence referendums worldwide between 1980 and 2014, political scientists have identified five key principles that any independence referendum question must satisfy: it must be clear and simple, to the point, unambiguous, neutral, and not misleading to voters.

This matters for Texas because the referendum question we’ve proposed in the Texas Independence Referendum Act wasn’t crafted in a vacuum. It represents the culmination of decades of learning from both successful and failed independence movements around the world. We’ve incorporated the best practices identified by researchers while avoiding the pitfalls that have plagued other independence movements.

The question “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?” might seem straightforward, but every word was chosen with purpose. Each element of this question reflects careful consideration of international standards, historical precedent, and the unique context of Texas. As we’ll explore in detail, this question meets or exceeds all five criteria for referendum question legitimacy while remaining true to Texas’s unique historical and legal position.

In this analysis, we’ll examine exactly how and why our proposed referendum question was constructed, defend its specific wording, and demonstrate why it represents the best possible formulation for this historic vote. We’ll draw on academic research, historical examples, and international standards to show why this question gives Texans the clearest possible choice about their future.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. When Texans go to the polls to vote on independence, they deserve a question that is clear, fair, and allows them to make an informed choice about their future. The question we’ve proposed does exactly that.

Lessons from History: The Evolution of Independence Referendum Questions

The path to crafting the perfect independence referendum question has been paved with both catastrophic failures and notable successes. No examples are more instructive than the contrasting cases of Quebec’s confused and biased questions versus Scotland’s clear and direct approach.

Quebec’s Failed Approach

Quebec’s 1980 referendum question stands as a master class in how not to craft a referendum question. The question was an astounding 106 words long and asked voters:

“The Government of Québec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Québec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes, and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; no change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Québec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Québec and Canada?”

This question failed on multiple levels. It was unnecessarily complex, contained multiple propositions, and didn’t directly ask about independence. Instead, it asked for a “mandate to negotiate” while mixing in questions about economic association and future referendums. The result was a confused electorate and a defeated referendum.

Quebec’s 1995 attempt wasn’t much better. Though shorter, it still suffered from similar problems:

“Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”

Again, the question mixed independence with other issues like economic partnership and referenced external documents that voters may not have been familiar with. Though this referendum came closer to passing, it still failed, in part due to the confusion created by its poorly constructed question.

Scotland’s Success

In contrast, Scotland’s 2014 referendum featured what researchers consider the gold standard for independence referendum questions:

“Should Scotland be an independent country?”

This eight-word question exemplifies everything a referendum question should be. It’s clear, simple, unambiguous, neutral, and directly addresses the core issue without extraneous elements. The UK Electoral Commission extensively reviewed the question, which rejected an earlier version that began with “Do you agree” because that phrasing was deemed too leading.

Montenegro’s Middle Ground

Montenegro’s 2006 referendum provides another instructive example. Their question read:

“Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with full international and legal personality?”

While slightly more complex than Scotland’s question, it still maintained clarity while adding important context about international recognition – a key concern for newly independent nations.

Learning from History

These historical examples provide crucial lessons that we applied in crafting the Texas Independence Referendum question:

1. Brevity is essential – shorter questions are almost always clearer
2. Focus on the core issue (independence) without mixing in other policy matters
3. Avoid references to external documents or future negotiations
4. Use clear, commonly understood terms rather than legal or technical language
5. Maintain neutrality in phrasing

The Texas question – “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?” – incorporates these lessons while acknowledging Texas’s unique historical context. Unlike Quebec or Scotland, Texas was previously an independent nation, hence the carefully chosen word “reassert” rather than simply “become.” Yet, like Scotland’s successful question, it maintains brevity and clarity while focusing solely on the core issue of independence.

This historical perspective demonstrates that our proposed question isn’t just well-crafted – it represents the culmination of decades of learning about what works and what doesn’t in independence referendums. By studying both failures and successes, we’ve crafted a question that gives Texans the clear choice they deserve while avoiding the pitfalls that have plagued other independence movements.

The Five Pillars of Question Intelligibility

The Electoral Commission of the United Kingdom, through its extensive work on referendum questions, including both the Scottish independence and Brexit votes, has established what are now considered the global standards for referendum question construction. These five criteria – clear and simple, to the point, unambiguous, neutral, and not misleading to voters – provide a framework for evaluating any independence referendum question. Let’s examine how the proposed Texas Independence Referendum question meets each of these criteria.

Clear and Simple

The first requirement is that voters must be able to easily understand the language of the question. Our proposed question – “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?” – contains just 12 words, all commonly understood in everyday speech. Compare this to Quebec’s 106-word question in 1980 or even Montenegro’s longer formulation about “international and legal personality.”

The structure is straightforward: it uses a single clause with a clear subject (Texas), verb (reassert), and object (status as an independent nation). There are no subordinate clauses, no complex legal terminology, and no references to external documents or future conditions. This simplicity ensures that voters of all educational levels can understand what they’re being asked.

To the Point

A referendum question must focus solely on the core issue being decided. Our question addresses one thing only: whether Texas should return to independent nationhood. Unlike Quebec’s questions, which mixed sovereignty with economic partnerships, or East Timor’s question, which confused the issue by combining independence with special autonomy proposals, the Texas question maintains laser-like focus on the central issue.

The question doesn’t mention:

• Future negotiations with the United States
• Economic arrangements
• Currency
• Trade relationships
• Military considerations
• Any other policy matters

These issues, while important, are separate from the fundamental question of independence and would only serve to confuse voters if included in the referendum question itself.

Unambiguous

Ambiguity in referendum questions can arise from multiple sources: vague terminology, complex sentence structure, or terms that mean different things to different people. Our question avoids these pitfalls through precise word choice:

• “State of Texas” – Uses the current official designation
• “reassert” – Acknowledges Texas’s unique historical position as a former independent nation
• “status” – Clearly indicates a change in political standing
• “independent nation” – Uses universally understood terminology rather than potentially ambiguous terms like “sovereign” or “state”

The term “independent nation” is particularly important because it has a clear, widely understood meaning in international law and common usage. Unlike Quebec’s use of “sovereignty-association” or Catalonia’s confusing two-part question about becoming “a state” and then an “independent state,” our terminology leaves no room for misinterpretation.

Neutral

A referendum question must not suggest or encourage voters to consider one response more favorably than another. Our question achieves neutrality through several mechanisms:

1. Avoids leading phrases like “Do you agree…” which the Electoral Commission has specifically identified as problematic
2. Uses no emotional or loaded language
3. Presents the choice without qualification or condition
4. Maintains a neutral tone without positive or negative connotations

The use of “reassert” rather than “become” might be questioned from a neutrality standpoint, but it actually enhances neutrality by accurately reflecting Texas’s unique historical position. It would be less neutral to ignore this historical fact and treat Texas as if it had never been an independent nation.

Not Misleading to Voters

The final criterion requires that voters understand both the meaning of individual words and the question as a whole. Our question excels here because:

1. Every word has a clear, commonly understood meaning
2. The sentence structure is straightforward
3. The implications of a “yes” or “no” vote are clear
4. There are no hidden conditions or unstated consequences
5. The question doesn’t require knowledge of external documents or agreements

Unlike Quebec’s questions, which implied future negotiations without guaranteeing their outcome, or East Timor’s question, which forced voters to reject autonomy to choose independence, our question presents a clear choice without hidden complications.

Through careful attention to these five pillars of question intelligibility, we’ve crafted a question that meets or exceeds international standards while remaining true to Texas’s unique circumstances. Each word serves a purpose, and together they form a question that gives Texans the clear choice they deserve when deciding their political future.

Deconstructing the Texas Independence Referendum Question

Let’s perform a detailed word-by-word analysis of our proposed question: “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?”

“Should” Our question begins with “Should” rather than “Do you agree” or “Do you want.” This choice is significant and deliberately follows the model that proved successful in Scotland while avoiding pitfalls identified by the Electoral Commission. “Should” is:

• Impersonal, avoiding the direct address that can make questions feel leading
• Action-focused rather than opinion-focused
• Forward-looking while remaining neutral
• Commonly used in both formal and informal contexts

“the State of” These three words serve multiple important functions:

• Uses Texas’s current official designation
• Provides legal clarity about the entity in question
• Distinguishes from other uses of “Texas” (geographic, cultural, etc.)
• Maintains consistency with existing legal frameworks

“Texas” While seemingly straightforward, using “Texas” rather than a longer formal name:

• Provides instant recognition
• Maintains continuity with historical precedent
• Avoids confusion with any subsidiary governmental bodies
• Connects directly with voters’ sense of identity

“reassert” This may be our most carefully chosen word, selected after extensive consideration of alternatives like “become,” “declare,” or “establish.” “Reassert” is optimal because it:

• Acknowledges Texas’s unique historical status as a former independent nation
• Implies restoration rather than creation of a new status
• Has legal precedent in international law regarding resumed sovereignty
• Avoids the negative connotations of terms like “secede” or “separate”

The use of “reassert” directly contrasts with Scotland’s use of “be” or Montenegro’s “become.” While those questions worked in their contexts, neither Scotland nor Montenegro had previously existed as independent nations in the modern era. Texas’s unique historical position demands different terminology.

“its status” This phrase:

• Maintains formal tone appropriate to the gravity of the question
• References the legal and political position being changed
• Avoids emotional or leading language
• Provides clear connection between current and proposed position

“as” This simple word serves as a crucial bridge in the question, helping to:

• Maintain grammatical clarity
• Create a clear relationship between status and end state
• Avoid potentially confusing alternative constructions

“an independent” The choice of “independent” rather than “sovereign” or other alternatives is deliberate:

• “Independent” has a clear, commonly understood meaning
• Avoids legal complexities associated with terms like “sovereign”
• Used successfully in other independence referendums
• Directly states the core issue being decided

“nation” The final word was chosen over alternatives like “country,” “state,” or “republic” because:

• “Nation” has clear meaning in international law
• Avoids confusion with current “state” status
• Implies full international recognition and standing
• Connects with historical precedent of the Republic of Texas

Comparative Analysis

When compared to other independence referendum questions, ours stands out for its precision and clarity while maintaining appropriate formality:

Scotland (2014): “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

• Similar structure but lacks historical context

Montenegro (2006): “Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with full international and legal personality?”

• More complex and includes unnecessary technical language

Quebec (1995): “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership…?”

• Mixes multiple issues and includes future conditions

Our question avoids the common pitfalls evident in these examples while maintaining the strengths that made some successful. It’s worth noting that our question is slightly longer than Scotland’s gold standard but shorter than nearly all others, striking an optimal balance between clarity and completeness.

Potential Criticisms and Responses

1. “Why not use simpler language like Scotland?” Response: Texas’s unique historical context requires slightly more precise language to accurately reflect its previous independent status.
2. “Is ‘reassert’ too complex?” Response: While slightly more formal than “become,” it’s still commonly understood and critically important for historical accuracy.
3. “Why not include reference to the United States?” Response: Adding reference to the current union would unnecessarily complicate the question and potentially bias voters.
4. “Should future arrangements be mentioned?” Response: Including any post-independence arrangements would confuse the core issue and potentially mislead voters about what they’re deciding.

Through this detailed analysis, we can see that every word in our proposed question serves a specific purpose, working together to create a clear, legally precise, and historically accurate question that meets all international standards while remaining accessible to voters.

International Standards and the Texas Question

While the United States has not historically provided clear standards for independence referendum questions, international organizations and other nations have developed robust frameworks for evaluating referendum language. Our proposed Texas Independence Referendum question aligns with these established international standards while acknowledging Texas’s unique historical position.

Modern International Standards

The most comprehensive modern standards for referendum questions come from three main sources:

• The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe
• The UK Electoral Commission
• The Canadian Clarity Act

While these sources sometimes differ in specific recommendations, they agree on fundamental principles that our question satisfies:

1. Question Simplicity – Our 12-word formulation compares favorably with internationally recognized examples. It’s shorter than Montenegro’s UN and EU-approved question while maintaining similar clarity of purpose.
2. Single Issue Focus – Unlike Quebec’s failed attempts that mixed independence with economic partnerships, our question follows the international best practice of focusing solely on independence.
3. Clear Outcomes – International standards require that voters understand the implications of their choice. Our question makes clear that a “yes” vote means full independence and a “no” vote maintains current status.
4. Neutral Language – We follow modern international practice by avoiding leading phrases like “Do you agree” (rejected by the UK Electoral Commission) or emotionally charged terms like “separation” (criticized in the East Timor referendum).

Compatibility with Recent Successful Referendums

Recent successful independence referendums provide important benchmarks for question construction. Our question shows strong compatibility with these examples while maintaining Texas’s unique context:

Scotland (2014):

• Their question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
• Our similar structure but with necessary historical context

Montenegro (2006):

• Their question included “full international and legal personality”
• Our simpler formulation achieves same goal more concisely

South Sudan (2011):

• Their stark choice between “Unity” and “Secession”
• Our more nuanced approach avoids negative terminology while maintaining clarity

Addressing Unique Texas Factors

International standards recognize that historical and legal context matters. Our use of “reassert” rather than “become” reflects two crucial international principles:

1. Historical Accuracy – International law recognizes that entities which previously existed as independent nations may have different legal standing than those seeking independence for the first time.
2. Legal Continuity – The concept of “reasserting” status has precedent in international law, particularly regarding restored states.

Meeting Enhanced Modern Standards

Recent referendums have established additional criteria that our question satisfies:

1. Readability Standards

• Appropriate reading level
• Common vocabulary
• Clear sentence structure

2. Accessibility Requirements

• Easily translatable
• Understandable across educational levels
• Suitable for ballot design

3. Legal Precision

• Clearly identified political entity
• Unambiguous proposed status
• Legally actionable outcome

The Evolution of Standards

The academic research shows that standards for independence referendum questions have evolved significantly since Quebec’s failed attempts in 1980 and 1995. Our question reflects these evolved standards while avoiding newly identified pitfalls:

1. Avoids Multi-Part Questions Unlike Catalonia’s confusing two-part question about statehood and independence, we maintain international best practice of a single, clear question.
2. Excludes Implementation Details Following modern practice, we separate the independence decision from questions about implementation.
3. Maintains Formal Tone While using accessible language, we maintain appropriate formality for a nation-changing decision.

Through careful attention to these international standards and best practices, we’ve crafted a question that would stand up to international scrutiny while remaining true to Texas’s unique circumstances and history.

Beyond the Question: Additional Considerations

While the wording of the referendum question is crucial, the academic research identifies several additional factors that affect the legitimacy and success of independence referendums. The Texas Independence Referendum Act addresses these considerations comprehensively.

Ballot Design

International best practices for independence referendum ballots have evolved significantly. The Texas Independence Referendum Act incorporates these lessons through several key provisions:

1. Physical Layout

• Clear visual separation between question and response options
• Adequate white space
• Consistent formatting
• Professional appearance that conveys the gravity of the decision

2. Response Options Our simple “Yes/No” format follows Scotland’s successful model rather than potentially confusing alternatives like:

• Accept/Reject (used in East Timor)
• Unity/Secession (used in South Sudan)
• Multiple choice options (considered but rejected in Scotland)

3. Typography

• Easy-to-read font requirements
• Sufficient size for accessibility
• Clear emphasis on key elements
• Consistent with existing Texas election materials

Language Accessibility

Texas has a diverse population, making language accessibility crucial. Our approach addresses this through:

1. Multi-Language Requirements

• Primary ballot text in English
• Spanish translation required
• Provisions for other languages as needed
• Consistent with existing Texas election law

2. Plain Language Standards

• Avoids technical jargon
• Uses commonly understood terms
• Maintains consistency across translations
• Ensures equivalent meaning in all versions

3. Readability Testing The question has been evaluated using standard readability metrics to ensure:

• Appropriate reading level
• Clear comprehension across educational levels
• Consistent understanding across demographic groups
• Accessibility for all voters

Timing and Context

The academic research emphasizes the importance of timing and context in referendum success. Our Act addresses these factors through:

1. Campaign Period

• Adequate time for public debate
• Sufficient notice before voting day
• Clear timeline for implementation
• Structured transition period

2. Voter Education

• Required information dissemination
• Official explanatory materials
• Neutral information about implications
• Access to objective analysis

3. Process Transparency

• Clear rules for campaign conduct
• Financial disclosure requirements
• International observation provisions
• Vote counting protocols

Legal Framework

The Act establishes a comprehensive legal framework that addresses concerns raised in other independence referendums:

1. Procedural Integrity

• Clear oversight responsibilities
• Specific process requirements
• Dispute resolution mechanisms
• Vote verification procedures

2. Campaign Regulations

• Spending limits
• Contribution restrictions
• Advertising guidelines
• Equal access provisions

3. Implementation Timeline

• Specific transition periods
• Clear effective dates
• Orderly transfer provisions
• Contingency planning

Administrative Considerations

Drawing from international experience, the Act includes provisions for:

1. Voter Eligibility

• Clear qualification criteria
• Registration requirements
• Residency standards
• Documentation needs

2. Polling Place Operations

• Standard procedures
• Staff training requirements
• Security provisions
• Accessibility standards

3. Vote Counting

• Transparent processes
• Multiple verification levels
• Observer access
• Results certification

International Recognition

The Act incorporates elements designed to ensure international legitimacy:

1. Process Integrity

• International standards compliance
• Observer access
• Transparent procedures
• Clear accountability

2. Result Verification

• Multiple validation levels
• Independent oversight
• Clear certification process
• International monitoring provisions

3. Implementation Framework

• Orderly transition provisions
• International law compliance
• Clear sovereignty transfer
• Diplomatic protocols

These additional considerations demonstrate our comprehensive approach to ensuring not just a well-worded question, but a legitimate and successful referendum process that meets or exceeds international standards.

Addressing the Critics

Any independence referendum question will face scrutiny and criticism. Let’s examine and refute the most common objections to our proposed question: “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?”

Legal Challenges

Critics often claim that any independence referendum question is inherently illegal. This argument fails on multiple levels:

1. The “Texas v. White” Argument Critics frequently cite this 1869 Supreme Court case as definitive. However:

• The ruling came in a specific post-Civil War context
• The legal landscape has evolved significantly
• International law now strongly supports self-determination
• The case didn’t address peaceful, democratic processes

2. Constitutional Arguments – While some argue no constitutional provision allows secession, this ignores:

• The 10th Amendment’s reservation of powers to states
• Texas’s unique history of prior independence
• International legal principles of self-determination
• Modern precedents for peaceful separation

Academic Criticisms

Common academic criticisms and our responses:

1. “The question is too simple” This criticism misunderstands modern referendum best practices:

• Scotland’s successful question was even shorter
• Complex questions confuse voters
• Additional details belong in enabling legislation
• Simple questions produce clearer mandates

2. “Reassert is too complex” Some argue for simpler language like “become”, but:

• “Reassert” accurately reflects Texas’s unique history
• The word is commonly understood
• It has legal significance in international law
• It avoids negative terms like “secede” or “separate”

3. “Future arrangements should be included” Critics suggesting we include post-independence plans ignore:

• Quebec’s failure when mixing questions
• Scotland’s success with a simple question
• International best practices favoring single-issue focus
• The need for separate democratic processes on specific arrangements

Political Objections

Political critics often raise several points:

1. “The question is biased toward independence” – This claim doesn’t stand up to analysis:

• Neutral structure following international standards
• No leading language like “Do you agree”
• Equal treatment of both options
• Historically accurate terminology

2. “It doesn’t mention the United States” – This omission is deliberate and correct:

• Follows international best practices
• Maintains focus on the core issue
• Avoids emotional complications
• Prevents confusion about relationships

3. “The question oversimplifies a complex issue” – This criticism misunderstands the purpose of referendum questions:

• Referendum questions should be simple
• Complex issues require voter education
• Details belong in enabling legislation
• Clear questions enable informed choices

Technical Challenges

Some critics raise technical objections:

1. “The term ‘nation’ is imprecise” – Actually, our choice of “nation” is deliberate:

• Clear meaning in international law
• Avoids confusion with current “state” status
• Implies full sovereignty
• Historically accurate for Texas

2. “Status is too vague” – This criticism ignores:

• Legal precision of the term
• Common understanding
• Historical usage
• International precedent

Practical Concerns

Critics sometimes raise practical objections:

1. “Voters won’t understand the implications” – This misses several key points:

• Referendum questions should be simple
• Voter education addresses implications
• Complex questions confuse voters
• Clear questions enable informed debate

2. “The question ignores practical arrangements” – This actually follows best practices:

• Practical arrangements follow the principle
• Voters need clear choice on core issue
• Details decided through democratic processes
• Avoids Quebec’s mistakes

Historical Objections

Some critics challenge our historical perspective:

1. “Previous independence doesn’t matter” – This ignores:

• Legal significance of prior sovereignty
• International law precedents
• Texas’s unique history
• Impact on current status

2. “The Civil War settled this” – This oversimplifies:

• Modern peaceful separation processes
• Evolution of international law
• Democratic principles
• Right to self-determination

Each of these criticisms, while worthy of consideration, ultimately fails to undermine the careful construction of our referendum question. We’ve crafted a question that meets international standards, reflects Texas’s unique position, and gives voters the clear choice they deserve.

A Question Worthy of Texas

The wording of an independence referendum question might seem like a technical detail, but as our analysis demonstrates, it’s fundamental to the entire process of self-determination. The Texas Independence Referendum Act’s proposed question – “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?” – represents the culmination of decades of learning about what works and what doesn’t in independence referendums.

Key Findings

Our analysis has demonstrated that the proposed question:

1. Meets or exceeds all international standards for referendum questions

• Clear and simple construction
• Direct focus on the core issue
• Unambiguous meaning
• Neutral phrasing
• Not misleading to voters

2. Learns from historical precedents

• Avoids Quebec’s complex, confusing approach
• Builds on Scotland’s clarity
• Maintains Montenegro’s formality
• Improves on all previous examples

3. Acknowledges Texas’s unique position

• Recognizes previous independence
• Maintains legal precision
• Respects historical context
• Provides clear path forward

Looking Forward

As Texas moves toward this historic vote, the careful construction of our referendum question provides several advantages:

1. Legal Strength

• Meets international standards
• Follows established precedents
• Provides clear mandate
• Supports legal framework

2. Political Clarity

• Enables informed debate
• Focuses discussion
• Avoids distractions
• Supports democratic process

3. Practical Implementation

• Clear voter intent
• Straightforward counting
• Unambiguous results
• Strong mandate

The Path Forward

With this carefully constructed question as our foundation, Texas can move forward with confidence toward a referendum that:

• Gives voters a clear choice
• Meets international standards
• Respects our unique history
• Provides strong legitimacy

When Texans step into the voting booth to make this momentous decision, they deserve a question that is clear, fair, and historically accurate. Our proposed question delivers exactly that. It represents not just careful wordsmithing, but a commitment to the principles articulated in Article 1 Section 2 of the Texas Constitution, historical accuracy, and international best practices.

This question isn’t just about words on a ballot – it’s about giving Texans the clear choice they deserve when deciding their political future. Through careful attention to international standards, historical precedent, and legal requirements, we’ve crafted a question worthy of Texas and this historic moment.

As we move forward with the referendum process, we can do so with confidence that our question provides the strong foundation necessary for a legitimate, democratic decision about Texas’s future. The choice will ultimately rest with the people of Texas, but this question ensures they can make that choice clearly and confidently.