Austin voters soundly rejected Proposition Q, the controversial city-backed plan to raise more than $100 million in property tax revenue to pay for homeless services and other city projects.

Taken at face value, the measure was simple: It asked Austinites to voluntarily increase their city property tax bills to pay for what the city deemed essential services. But that was a tall order for some.

The measure was a lightning rod in a typically sleepy off-year election cycle, with more than 100,000 voters casting ballots on Election Day alone.

Now, Prop Q’s failure could push Austin City Council to temper its spending habits.

Save Austin Now, the primary political opponent of the measure, organized a broad coalition of Austin voters to reject Prop Q. The political action committee argued it would make Austin less affordable for property owners, workers, renters and businesses.

At a campaign watch party Tuesday night, Austin attorney Adam Loewy, who gave $10,000 to the campaign and donated a billboard to Save Austin Now, said the measure’s failure proves “enough is enough,” and that citizens want City Council members to pare back spending. Loewy cited recent expenses on a $1.1 million logo and recent trips abroad by council members, among other expenses.

“The spending must stop. We do not need more taxes, and this City Council needs to get the message to get their house in order,” he said. “Quit with the million dollar logos. Quit with the trips to Japan. Quit with wasting the taxpayer money.”

Mayor Kirk Watson agreed, to a point, saying council members “need to give voters reason to trust us.” Watson said the rejection is a clear mandate to reexamine the costs and needs of city-funded programs.

“We should meet the voters’ mandate with a coherent, straightforward budget process that focuses on basic services and basic budgeting,” he said in a statement Tuesday. “At a time when people are losing faith in all levels of government, including local government, as evidenced by the election outcome, our city government needs to show it can act in a thoughtful, structured way.”

Council Member Marc Duchen, the lone vote against the tax rate election plan, said the rejection was “a referendum on trust” in a statement and echoed Watson’s call for a clear-headed appraisal of spending at City Hall.

“My colleagues and I have an opportunity to restore our constituents’ faith in local government, and I hope we seize it,” he said.

AUSTIN — Texans are voting Tuesday to add rights for parents who find themselves at odds with the state or other governmental entities over how to raise their children, making Texas the first state to add parental rights to its founding document if Proposition 15 passes.

If approved, the new language will be added to Article 1 of the Texas Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights. That’s the section that lays out the rights and protections for Texans, including limits on the government’s power, and the individual freedoms of speech, religion and the right to bear arms, among others.

What does the amendment say?

“To enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”

Would it change any state laws?

There is no indication that this will substantially change any state or federal laws, including those against child abuse or other protections, attorneys who support the bill have said, if it’s approved. Instead, it gathers up rights that have already been established over a century in state and U.S. Supreme Court case law, the bill’s author said.

Did any lawmakers vote against it?

Yes, but most didn’t. For an amendment to be presented to voters, it has to gain at least two-thirds support in the Legislature, so this one had bipartisan support. The amendment won unanimous support in the Senate but was opposed by two dozen Democrats in the House, many of them members of the far-left Texas Legislative Progressive Caucus who warned that laws spotlighting the rights of the parents often ignore the needs of children to be heard and protected by the government — often from their own parents.

Is this a new issue?

No. State leaders in Republican-dominated Texas have been pushing for more laws like this for years. In 2019, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released a report defending parental rights against state interference at the request of a Republican House chairman. In 2023, Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed a package of legislation intended to strengthen parents’ voices in education, including giving them access to curriculum and library materials.

What was the first parental rights decision in the U.S.?

Notable federal cases that have contributed to parental-rights precedents go as far back as 1923, when the U.S. Supreme Court established a parent’s right to guide their children’s education “suitable to their station in life.” In 1925, a century ago, the court cemented that right with a precedent-setting opinion: “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

What has happened since then?

Several additional cases. In 1972, Wisconsin vs. Yoder established the right to raise your child in the religion of your choosing. In the early ‘80s, the court required a higher burden of proof to terminate parental rights. In the 2000 decision Troxel vs. Granville, the court connected parental rights to the 14th Amendment protections of privacy.

In 1979, the court’s majority opinion summed up its position this way:

“The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.”

AUSTIN (KXAN) — In a match with a combined 27 fouls and eight yellow cards, visiting LAFC overwhelmed Austin FC 4-1 on Sunday at Q2 Stadium, advancing to the Western Conference semifinals of the MLS playoffs.

With the victory, LAFC claimed the best-of-3 first-round series 2-0 following their 2-1 win Oct. 29 in Los Angeles.

By the time Austin FC’s Dani Pereira converted a penalty kick in the waning moment of first-half stoppage time, LAFC went into the locker room up 3-1 and in full control of the match.

Son Heung-min, the former Tottenham Hotspur captain who joined LAFC in August, opened the scoring in the 21st minute by beating Ilie Sanchez with a nasty stepover, and then he fired a shot past Brad Stuver from just outside the 6-yard box.

Denis Bouanga bagged a pair of goals in the first half to build LAFC’s insurmountable advantage. His first came four minutes after Son’s opening marker and was his 100th goal across all competitions with the club. His second goal added salt to the wound for Austin to make it 3-0 in the 44th minute. It came after LAFC goalkeeper Hugo Lloris stopped a Myrto Uzuni penalty kick attempt in the 39th minute.

LAFC’s Jeremy Ebobisse entered the match for Son in the 88th minute and, in five minutes, added another tally. He fired a left-footed shot past Stuver’s sliding boot to put an exclamation point on the final match of the season in Austin.

LAFC outshot Austin 17-7, including 5-4 on target, and Austin was whistled for offside three times.

It was the first time since 2022 that Austin made the MLS playoffs. They entered the postseason as the No. 6 seed in the Western Conference.

Coupled with its playoff appearance and runner-up finish in the U.S. Open Cup, Austin took a step in the right direction under first-year head coach Nico Estevez.

LAFC will face the Vancouver Whitecaps in the conference semifinals.