Texas Proposition 3: A Constitutional Amendment Framed to Restrict Public Health Measures

My Texas "I Voted" Sticker

On November 12, 2021, Texas voters approved eight amendments to the state constitution, all cleverly worded to ensure that they would pass. Let’s look at one of them, which was Proposition 3 on the Texas ballot. Proposition 3 was framed to focus the voters’ attention on freedom of religion. Most people support religious freedom. It was cleverly not framed to focus on public health. If they think about it, many people also support public health. However, Proposition 3 was phrased so that voters would need to make a special effort to think in public health terms. Proposition 3 did not look like a persuasive message. But it was. The way it was phrased – the spin – had a powerful persuasive impact.

So, here is Proposition 3:

“The constitutional amendment to prohibit this state or a political subdivision of this state from prohibiting or limiting religious services of religious organizations.”

Proposition 3 could easily have been framed to focus on public health. It could have said (but did not): “The constitutional amendment to stop public health authorities from imposing reasonable, temporary restrictions on religious organizations if evidence shows they are spreading a deadly disease.” If it had been phrased that way, the amendment might have been defeated. 

Every time we say something, especially if we are trying to persuade people, we always frame it in a particular way. Framing is not an evil thing. It is always part of how we communicate. Yet, the way an argument is framed often persuades with more power than facts or evidence.

Proposition 3 was framed to evoke an emotional response about religious freedom. Erving Goffman called this kind of thing “spin.” Proposition 3 was phrased to arouse fear that the government was going to interfere with religion. It was not phrased to arouse our fear about catching a virus and gasping to death on a ventilator. That was a value choice by the people who wrote the proposition.

In a more general sense, we frame all kinds of things, controversial and non-controversial alike. For example, consider the Civil War. Do we really learn about the Civil War? Or do we call it the War Between the States, as I learned in Virginia schools in the 1960s? That’s a framing question. Before the Civil War, the southern states said that the issue was slavery. After the Civil War, they insisted that the real issue had been states’ rights. Which framing is correct? How do we respond to those competing frames? Just as an art frame sets off a picture and affects the viewer’s emotional response, so a rhetorical frame also affects the way people respond.

Any number of examples can show how framing changes how we understand issues. Suppose the TV news shows President Joe Biden stopping to chat with a small child. The news could frame the tender event in at least three different ways:

#1 President Joe Biden is a kind, compassionate man who cares about other people.

Or

#2 President Joe Biden might be a nice guy, but he’s weak.

Or

#3 President Joe Biden shows the strength that comes from wisdom.

Can you see how different people can perceive the same event differently? #1, #2, and #3 all refer to the same facts, and a voter could interpret Biden’s actions in any of those three ways.

Similarly, not long ago, I blogged about how conservatives often discuss coronavirus restrictions as being control measures, not public health provisions. That, again, is framing. Yes, coronavirus restrictions do, indeed, limit what we do. So there is an element of control. The coronavirus restrictions also save lives. A religious Texas summer camp infected 125 attendees. So, which is more important? Religious freedom, or health? Should we balance the two? Can we have both? When we put a frame around coronavirus restrictions, does that frame stress the control, or the public safety? Notice, however, that none of that framing even mentions facts or arguments. How many people are dying from the coronavirus? Do the restrictions save lives? Do the restrictions limit our ability to succeed? Once we have framed the issue of coronavirus restrictions, we see the facts, pro and con, in different lights – depending on our framing.

Earlier Post: "It's All about Control:" Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion

The framing of Proposition 3 was no accident. No, Proposition 3 arose because public health authorities sometimes restricted religious services during the pandemic’s height. Public health authorities believe that religious services often became super-spreader events. It’s no secret why that should happen. Dr. William Schaffner of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine explained why religious services often spread disease:

“The members know each other. They enjoy seeing each other. They hug, they kiss, and they spend a fair amount of prolonged time in close association.”

Dr. Eric Christopher Cioe-Pena contributes this comment:

“Sometimes people are not wearing masks when they speak or sing, and a lot of these churches are older and have poor ventilation.”

So, public health authorities do not necessarily want to interfere with religious freedom, but they do want to stop disease from spreading. At the same time, many religious organizations of many faiths resisted simple public health precautions. Churches displayed signs like “masks optional” and took it as a matter of pride when people stuffed the pews.

Indeed, the framing may have made more difference than the actual issues. Texas news organizations gave little information about the constitutional propositions. Probably, few people were aware in any real way of the pros and cons. Although I read the brief information on the League of Woman Voters website, most people probably just responded to the proposition's text.

Accordingly, people voted in favor of religious freedom. Proposition 3 passed. The final tally was 62% for and only 38% against. Turnout in this off-cycle election was only about 9%, so, like many American elections, it was decided as much by who didn’t vote as by who did vote.

So, the freedom of religion frame seemed to shape the result. I’ve said many times that the side that sets the agenda usually wins the debate. The people who wrote Proposition 3 set the agenda by what they did and did not emphasize. Proposition 3 was phrased to direct attention toward religious freedom. It did not direct attention toward public health.

And, so, the next time a pandemic hits the state of Texas, religious organizations will be free to spread fatal diseases to as many people as they please. Of course, when I phrase it that way, I’m not being neutral. In framing theory, neutrality is an illusion. I have my spin, and you have yours.

Earlier Post: Donald Trump Set the Agenda at the 2018 RNCC Fundraiser

And, yes, in case you are wondering, I voted “against” on Proposition 3. I’ve never seen anything in the Bible (or any other religious writing) that says, “Go forth and spread disease to all the nations.” But, then, there I go, spinning again.

Still, we frame things all the time. We all have perceptual frameworks that help us understand things. At the same time, to think critically, we need to understand our own frames and the frames that other people offer. That doesn’t mean that will ever be objective. We’re never objective. Nor does it mean that all perspectives are always equally valid. It means that we need to try to understand one another’s perspectives as best we can,


Earlier Post: Should Schools Reopen during the Pandemic? It Depends on How You Frame the Question


Research Note: Although framing theory dates back at least to the 1950s, most communication researchers refer to Erving Goffman’s 1974 explanation. Here is a good, easy-to-read explanation of framing theory. 

Of course, nowadays, years after Goffman wrote his book, the concept of “spin” is an everyday topic, especially in journalism. The point is that every message, certainly every persuasive message, is going to be framed. Issues will be spun in a particular way. There is no such thing as a "no spin zone." To be human is to spin. That isn’t always bad, but it’s something that we as listeners and readers need to notice. How is an issue framed? How could it be re-framed? Those are questions to ask.