Focus Report 89-4 — 2025 Texas constitutional amendments (July 28, 2025)

9ebc53d5862f55da48d960ea29b020e5a017b55c

Texas House Research Organization

No. 89-4July 28, 2025 HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION T exas voters have approved 530 amendments to the state Constitution since its adoption in 1876, according to the Legislative Reference Library. Seventeen more proposed amendments will be submitted for voter approval at the general election on T uesday, November 4, 2025. The following report contains an explanation of the process by which constitutional amendments are adopted and information on the proposed 2025 amendments, including a background,

summary of the amendment, and arguments made for and against each proposal as it was debated and considered by the Legislature. Sources of arguments may include witness testimony and public comments provided during committee hearings, discussion in the House and Senate chambers, and information on the proposed amendment published by stakeholders or collected by the legislative clipping service.

Amending the T exas Constitution ............................................................................................................2 Previous election results ............................................................................................................................3 Proposition 1: Establishing permanent capital funds for the T exas State T echnical College System ......... 5 Proposition 2: Prohibiting a capital gains tax ..........................................................................................7 Proposition 3: Requiring denial of bail for certain felony offenses........................................................... 9 Proposition 4: Establishing dedicated annual funding for the T exas Water Fund ..................................11 Proposition 5: Authorizing a property tax exemption for animal feed held for retail sale .......................13 Proposition 6: Prohibiting a tax on securities transactions or occupations ............................................. 15 Proposition 7: Extending tax exemptions to the surviving spouses of certain veterans ........................... 17 Proposition 8: Prohibiting the Legislature from imposing a death or transfer tax .................................. 19 Proposition 9: Revising the business personal property tax exemption ..................................................21 Proposition 10: Authorizing a property tax exemption for loss due to fire ............................................... 23 Proposition 11: Increasing certain additional residence homestead exemptions ....................................... 25 Proposition 12: Revising the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and review tribunals ..................... 27 Proposition 13: Increasing the residence homestead property tax exemption to $140,000 ...................... 29 Proposition 14: Establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of T exas and fund........... 31 Proposition 15: Affirming the rights and responsibilities of parents........................................................ 33 Proposition 16: Prohibiting noncitizens from voting ............................................................................. 35 Proposition 17: Authorizing a tax exemption for certain border security infrastructure .......................... 37 Constitutional amendments proposed for the November 2025 ballot HRO T exas House of Representatives 89th Legislature FOCUS report

Page 2 House Research Organization Amending the T exas Constitution The T exas Constitution is a living document that establishes the structure and purpose of the T exas government. It can be modified and adapted to suit the evolving needs and wants of the state’s residents. In order to make changes to the Constitution, a majority of T exas voters must approve a proposed constitutional amendment. Joint resolutions When the T exas Legislature wishes to establish a constitutional amendment, it does so by passing a joint resolution. This can be accomplished in either a regular or a special session, and the governor does not have authority to veto such resolutions. According to Art. 17,

sec. 1 of the T exas Constitution, a joint resolution must be adopted by at least two-thirds of the members in each legislative house before it can be presented to the voters. For example, SJR 59 by Birdwell was proposed during the 89th legislative session related to funding for the T exas State T echnical College System. The final version was approved by both legislative bodies, and on June 1, 2025, SJR 59 was approved for distribution to voters. In order for a joint resolution to be presented to voters, it must include the proposed text of the constitutional amendment.

Additionally, the resolution must specify the election date and the wording of the ballot proposition that will be presented to voters. If multiple propositions are under consideration, the secretary of state conducts a random drawing to assign each proposition a ballot number. If voters reject a proposal to amend the constitution, the Legislature may choose to resubmit it. For instance, in 1921, the 37th Legislature passed a joint resolution to abolish the Board of Prison Commissioners. However, voters initially rejected the proposal on July 23rd of that year.

Later, in November of 1926, the resolution was resubmitted to voters and passed relatively unchanged. Election date The Legislature specifies an election date for voter consideration of proposed constitutional amendments. In recent years, most proposals have been submitted at the first general election after the Legislature meets (i.e., in November of odd-numbered years). Publication The T exas Constitution requires that a brief explanatory statement of the nature of each proposed amendment, along with the ballot wording, be published twice in each newspaper in the state that prints official notices.

The secretary of state prepares the explanatory statements, which must be approved by the attorney general. The first notice must be published 50 to 60 days before the election. The second notice must be published on the same day of the following week. The secretary of state must send a complete copy of each amendment to each county clerk, who must post it in the courthouse at least 30 days before the election. Enabling legislation Some constitutional amendments are self-enacting and require no additional legislation to implement their provisions.

Other amendments grant discretionary authority to the Legislature to enact legislation in a particular area or within certain guidelines. These amendments require “enabling” legislation to fill in the details of how the amendment would operate. The Legislature sometimes adopts enabling legislation in advance, making the effective date of the legislation contingent on voter approval of a particular amendment. If voters reject the amendment, the legislation dependent on the constitutional change does not take effect.

Effective date Constitutional amendments take effect when the official vote canvass confirms statewide majority approval unless a later date is specified. Statewide election results are tabulated by the secretary of state and must be canvassed by the governor 15 to 30 days following the election. For more information on constitutional amendments, please visit the Legislative Reference Library of T exas website at https://lrl.texas.gov/legis/ConstAmends/index. cfm.

House Research Organization Page 3 Source: Legislative Reference Library of Texas Previous election results Analyses of the 14 proposals on the November 7, 2023, ballot appear in House Research Organization Focus Report No. 88-3, Proposed constitutional amendments for the November 2023 ballot, published on August 25, 2023.

Prop 1: Establishing the right to engage in certain agricultural practices For 2,025,803 79% Against 537,666 21% Prop 2: Authorizing property tax exemptions for child- care facilities For 1,629,151 65% Against 885,704 35% Prop 3: Prohibiting a tax on the net worth or wealth of individuals For 1,712,458 68% Against 809,815 32% Prop 4: Authorizing the legislature to establish certain property tax relief measures For 2,121,784 83% Against 421,177 17% Prop 5: Establishing the T exas University Fund for emerging research universities For 1,622,620 64% Against 898,790 36% Prop 6: Creating the T exas Water Fund to assist in financing water projects For 1,969,996 78% Against 566,712 22% Prop 7: Establishing the T exas Energy Fund for electric facility construction For 1,644,279 65% Against 888,410 35% Prop 8: Establishing the Broadband Infrastructure Fund For 1,750,736 69% Against 770,112 31% Prop 9: Authorizing a cost-of-living adjustment for retired teachers For 2,145,585 84% Against 416,824 16% Prop 10: Exempting certain property held by medical manufacturers from taxation For 1,370,569 55% Against 1,121,576 45%

Page 4 House Research Organization Prop 11: Authorizing El Paso County special districts to issue bonds for parks development For 1,526,830 63% Against 883,339 37% Prop 12: Abolishing Galveston County’s Office of County T reasurer For 1,212,667 53% Against 1,078,056 47% Prop 13: Increasing the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges For 932,834 37% Against 1,567,129 63% Prop 14: Creating the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund For 1,928,021 77% Against 591,658 23%

House Research Organization Page 5 Proposition 1: Establishing permanent capital funds for the T exas State T echnical College System Background T exas Constitution Art. 7,

sec. 17 provides for an annual appropriation of capital funding, referred to as the Higher Education Fund (HEF), for agencies and institutions of higher education, including the T exas State T echnical College (TSTC) System and its campuses, that are not supported by the Available University Fund.

Digest Proposition 1 would establish the Permanent T echnical Institution Infrastructure Fund and the Available Workforce Education Fund as special funds in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund to be administered without further appropriation to provide a dedicated source of funding for capital projects and equipment purchases related to educational programs offered by the TSTC System. The proposition would provide for the administration and management of the fund, including requiring the comptroller of public accounts to hold, manage, and invest in the permanent fund.

The comptroller also would be required to determine the amount available for distribution from the permanent fund to the available fund for each fiscal year. For each fiscal year, on request of the Board of Regents of the TSTC System, the comptroller would have to distribute funds from the permanent fund to the available fund, subject to certain limitations, including that the amount available for distribution could not exceed 5.5 percent of the fair market value of the permanent fund’s investment assets.

SJR 59 by Birdwell (Lambert) The available amount would be appropriated to the Board of Regents for: • the construction, repair, and rehabilitation of buildings and other permanent improvements, other than those to be used for intercollegiate athletics or auxiliary enterprises; • the acquisition of land, capital equipment, and library books and materials; • payments on bonds and notes issued to finance permanent improvements; and • any other purpose authorized by general law. Proposition 1 also would limit the amount of funds that the TSTC System was entitled to receive from the HEF .

Under the proposition, the sum of HEF funding allocated to the TSTC System and the amount distributed from the available fund created by the proposition could not exceed: • $52 million for the state fiscal year beginning September 1, 2025; and • for a state fiscal year beginning on or after September 1, 2026, the amount determined for the preceding fiscal year adjusted by any increase in the rate of inflation during the preceding fiscal year as determined by the comptroller based on changes in certain construction cost indexes.

If the sum of these amounts exceeded the limit for a state fiscal year, the amount of HEF funding allocated to the system or the amount distributed to the system from the available fund, if necessary, would have to be reduced until the limit was met or the amount was reduced to zero. The proposition would make conforming changes to relevant constitutional provisions on funding for certain state systems and higher education institutions.

Page 6 House Research Organization The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the permanent technical institution infrastructure fund and the available workforce education fund to support the capital needs of educational programs offered by the T exas State T echnical College System.” Supporters say Proposition 1 would improve the ability of the TSTC System to serve the educational and workforce needs of the state.

TSTC educates and trains highly skilled workers to fill positions in high-demand fields locally in the communities directly served by its campuses and throughout the state. The proposition would be a major step in the system’s ability to secure capital funds needed to expand capacity, which would improve access to technical education, build a stronger workforce pipeline, and increase economic development opportunities for T exas. TSTC operates on an outcomes-based funding model, which means it does not receive funding unless its graduates attain certain professional criteria.

Under the current funding model, TSTC receives funding from the HEF and cannot raise bonds or collect property taxes, which limits its ability to expand its programs. This makes it difficult for TSTC to meet the state’s demand for skilled workers. Most new jobs in T exas require post- secondary education or training credentials, but less than half of T exans currently hold such credentials. Proposition 1 would establish a reliable revenue source to support and expand the TSTC model, allowing more students to access education and training for high-quality jobs.

The appropriation authorized by the proposition would substantially increase TSTC funding, enabling the system to improve the services offered on its existing campuses and found new campuses in underserved areas of the state. While some have expressed concerns about TSTC’s funding model under the proposition, return value funding is reimbursed using funds paid for tuition by students, putting no extra cost on the state or college. Critics say Proposition 1 would increase government spending where it might not be needed.

By amending the Constitution to create a source of funding outside the general revenue fund, the proposition also could bind future legislatures and reduce accountability by establishing a funding mechanism outside of the typical state budget process. Other critics say Proposition 1 would not address certain concerns about TSTC’s current funding model. The return value funding model in practice at TSTC awards funding for graduates securing high-paying jobs.

Other circumstances, such as graduates failing to meet certain salary thresholds, can inhibit the return value and unfairly restrict funding for TSTC for reasons outside of its colleges’ control. Notes SB 1 by Huffman, the state budget for the 2026-2027 biennium, will appropriate an estimated amount in fiscal year 2027 not to exceed a total of $52 million between the annual HEF distribution and the fund created by Proposition 1 if the proposition is approved by voters.

House Research Organization Page 7 Proposition 2: Prohibiting a capital gains tax Background T exas Constitution Art. 8,

sec. 24-a prohibits the Legislature from imposing a tax on an individual’s net income, including an individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income. Digest Proposition 2 would add

sec. 24-b to Art. 8 of the T exas Constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from imposing a tax on the realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust. The proposition could not be construed to modify the applicability or prohibit the imposition or rate change of a property, sales, or use tax.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of a tax on the realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust.” Supporters say Proposition 2 would encourage economic growth and contribute to T exas’ pro-business environment by prohibiting capital gains taxes in the state. While the state Constitution currently prohibits an income tax, it does not explicitly prohibit a tax on capital gains. Capital gains taxes can discourage investment, slow economic growth, and reduce job creation.

If T exas were to impose a capital gains tax, many businesses could choose to relocate somewhere with more favorable tax policies. Proposition 2 would provide long-term certainty in tax policy for businesses and investors and give them confidence that T exas is committed to low taxes and a business-friendly environment. Limiting an additional source of tax revenue also could encourage fiscal responsibility in state government. SJR 18 by Perry (Capriglione) The proposition would ensure that no form of capital gains tax was imposed in T exas, including the current franchise tax on business trusts.

Critics say Proposition 2 would be unnecessary since there is currently no capital gains tax for individuals in T exas, and no bills have been filed this session proposing one. Additionally, the proposition could restrict future legislatures from accessing this source of revenue for the state. The proposition also could reduce tax revenue by encouraging business entities to organize as business trusts to avoid paying franchise taxes.

Under Proposition 2, the current franchise tax on business trusts that sell assets for a gain would be considered a capital gains tax and would no longer be constitutional, which could harm the state by further reducing tax revenue.

Page 8 House Research Organization

House Research Organization Page 9 Proposition 3: Requiring denial of bail for certain felony offenses Background T exas Constitution Art. 1,

sec. 11 generally provides that all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except in capital cases when the proof is evident. Under these provisions: •

sec. 11a permits the denial of bail for certain felony offenses if the accused has been previously convicted of a felony or is accused of committing a felony while released on bail; •

sec. 11b permits the denial of bail for violating a condition of release relating to the safety of a victim or the community; and •

sec. 11c permits the denial of bail for certain violations of court orders or release conditions in cases involving family violence. Digest Proposition 3 would add

sec. 11d to Art. 1 of the T exas Constitution to require that bail be denied pending trial to a person accused of one or more of the following felony offenses if the state demonstrated, after a hearing, by a preponderance of the evidence that granting bail would be insufficient to reasonably prevent the person’s wilful nonappearance in court, or by clear and convincing evidence that granting bail would be insufficient to reasonably ensure the safety of the community, law enforcement, or the victim of the alleged offense: • murder; • capital murder; • aggravated assault if the person caused serious bodily injury or used a firearm, club, knife, or explosive weapon; • aggravated kidnapping; • aggravated robbery; • aggravated sexual assault; SJR 5 by Huffman (Smithee) • indecency with a child; • trafficking of persons; or • continuous trafficking of persons.

In making this determination, a judge or magistrate would be required to consider the: • likelihood of the person’s wilful nonappearance in court; • nature and circumstances of the alleged offense; • safety of the community, law enforcement, and victim of the alleged offense; and • person’s criminal history.

A judge or magistrate who granted bail under Proposition 3 would be required to: • set bail and impose only those conditions of release necessary to reasonably prevent the person’s wilful nonappearance in court and ensure the safety of the community, law enforcement, and victim of the alleged offense; and • prepare a written order that included findings of fact and a statement explaining the judge’s or magistrate’s justification for the grant and the determinations required by these provisions. At a hearing described by the amendment, a person would be entitled to be represented by counsel.

Proposition 3 also would specify that these provisions could not be construed to limit any right a person had under other law to contest a denial of bail or to contest the amount of bail set by a judge or magistrate or to require any testimonial evidence, with respect to the applicable person, before a judge or magistrate made a bail decision. The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment requiring the denial of bail under certain circumstances to persons accused of certain offenses punishable as a felony.”

Page 10 House Research Organization Supporters say By requiring judges to deny bail for certain cases involving felonies such as murder, aggravated sexual assault, and human trafficking, Proposition 3 would prevent high-risk offenders from committing additional crimes while awaiting trial. Pretrial releases on low bail or personal recognizance can allow dangerous individuals to remain in the community, as high-risk defendants who can afford bail may be released, even if they pose a significant threat to public safety.

By limiting this authority to only the most serious offenses, the constitutional amendment would ensure that only those individuals who posed the greatest risk were denied bail. The proposed constitutional amendment also would provide a distinct threshold for denying bail by establishing two evidentiary standards: a preponderance of the evidence for nonappearance and clear and convincing evidence for public safety. The evidentiary structure is compatible with the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 and consistent with existing constitutional precedent, which could help protect the amendment from legal challenges.

Additionally, this determination could only be made after a judge found probable cause that the defendant had committed the underlying offense. This discretionary approach would apply multiple evidentiary standards that the state must meet before a judge could deny bail, balancing public safety concerns with the constitutional rights of the accused. Proposition 3 would give judges the tools to make informed decisions about pretrial detention, ensuring that detention was based on specific findings and grounded in the required evidentiary standards.

Proposition 3 also would include several procedural safeguards to protect defendants’ rights. Defendants would have the right to be represented by counsel at bail denial hearings, ensuring legal representation during this critical stage of the pretrial process. Additionally, if a judge determined that probable cause existed for one of the charged offenses and that the applicable evidentiary standard was met, the defendant would retain the right to appeal the decision.

Current law also requires that prosecutors meet certain indictment timelines under the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. If these deadlines were not met, a judge would have to lower a defendant’s bond amount. Critics say Proposition 3 could lead to longer pretrial detentions for individuals who had not been convicted of a crime, increasing financial and personal burdens and undermining the presumption of innocence.

The proposed constitutional amendment also could be ineffective at addressing its stated goal of increasing public safety, as high pretrial incarceration rates have been shown to be associated with increased recidivism, difficulty reintegrating into the community, and poorer long- term outcomes for defendants. The proposition could exacerbate racial disparities in the state’s criminal justice system, as people of color are already overrepresented in T exas jails.

Creating evidentiary standards for denying bail without establishing a specific timeline by which this determination must be made also could lead to delays in trial proceedings, causing alleged offenders to be held for longer without meaningful recourse and undermining defendants’ right to a speedy trial. T exas judges already have the discretion to deny bail to potentially dangerous individuals by setting cash bonds at amounts that effectively prevent release.

Additionally, T exas consistently ranks among the states with the highest pretrial detention rates even as violent crime rates have decreased, suggesting that the current system already provides for substantial pretrial detention. Increasing reliance on pretrial detention could exacerbate overcrowding in county jails, which are often understaffed and struggling with limited resources. This strain on resources could ultimately limit the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, potentially leading to higher taxpayer costs without commensurate public safety benefits.

Other critics say Proposition 3 should include a requirement for judges to consider the “least restrictive conditions” that would reasonably ensure public safety and the defendant’s appearance in court, rather than requiring judges to impose conditions that are “necessary only” to reasonably prevent the person’s wilful nonappearance or ensure public safety. This approach would create procedural safeguards to ensure that pretrial detention was reserved for truly high-risk cases and reduce the risk of unnecessarily lengthy incarceration for lower-risk defendants.

House Research Organization Page 11 Background Art. 3,

sec. 49-d-16 of the T exas Constitution creates the T exas Water Fund, established by the 88th Legislature and approved by voters in 2023. Digest Proposition 4 would amend the T exas Constitution to require the comptroller, in each state fiscal year, to deposit to the credit of the T exas Water Fund the first $1 billion of the net revenue derived from taxes under the Limited Sales, Excise, and Use Tax Act in excess of the first $46.5 billion of that revenue in the fiscal year.

The deposit would be subject to constitutional provisions on the appropriation and allocation of revenue from the state sales and use tax on sporting goods. The comptroller’s duty to make this annual deposit would expire August 31, 2047. The $1 billion annual allocation would have to be maintained by the administrator of the T exas Water Fund in a separate account in the fund and could not be transferred except as directed by legislative appropriation.

The administrator of the fund would be required to transfer the amount appropriated in accordance with the applicable allocations specified by constitutional provisions related to the T exas Water Fund. The proposition also would amend Art. 3,

sec. 49-d- 16 to allow the Legislature by general law or by adoption of a concurrent resolution approved by a majority vote to allocate the $1 billion deposited to the credit of the T exas Water Fund under the proposition for transfer to the funds and accounts administered by the T exas Water Development Board (TWDB). This allocation could not be changed by the Legislature during the first 10 fiscal years for which the money was allocated.

Any money deposited to the credit of the T exas Water Fund under the proposition that was not allocated by a general law or HJR 7 by Harris (Perry) resolution under this provision could be transferred to other funds or accounts by TWDB in accordance with relevant constitutional provisions. During a state of disaster, such an allocation could be suspended through the budget execution process or by adoption of a concurrent resolution approved by a majority vote of the Legislature, and appropriated for any purpose.

It would be the intent of the Legislature under the proposition that any money be restored to the T exas Water Fund when practicable. Money deposited to the credit of the T exas Water Fund under the proposition could not be transferred to the New Water Supply for T exas Fund for the purpose of financing the construction of infrastructure to transport groundwater produced from a well that, at the time of production, was not brackish, including from an applicable well associated with an aquifer storage and recovery project. Under a temporary provision, the proposition would take effect September 1, 2027.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the T exas Water Fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.” Supporters say By constitutionally dedicating an annual revenue stream of $1 billion to the T exas Water Fund, Proposition 4 would help address the deficit in funding for T exas’ pressing water needs.

In 2023, the 88th Legislature established and allocated $5 billion to the T exas Water Fund, a flexible fund administered by TWDB that allows the board to allocate funding to various water strategies based on differing regional needs and changing conditions. As the state’s population and water demand continue to Proposition 4: Establishing dedicated annual funding for the T exas Water Fund

Page 12 House Research Organization grow, studies have suggested that as much as $154 billion will be needed over the next 50 years to fully address water infrastructure concerns. Proposition 4 would help provide a sustainable funding mechanism to help meet these needs. The funding model established by Proposition 4 would be consistent with other models of infrastructure funding and provide predictable funding to improve water planning efforts and ensure that infrastructure keeps up with demand without increasing pressure on ratepayers.

Without significant investment in water, the risk of shortages could impact quality of life for T exas residents and stall economic development, as businesses may choose to establish themselves elsewhere due to concerns about water access in T exas. Since water costs are increasing and water projects can take a long time to complete, it is critical that this investment happen now to ensure the state’s water security into the future.

It would be unnecessarily burdensome for Proposition 4 to explicitly dedicate the majority of the new allocation to new water supply funding, as TWDB should retain primary discretion to target funding based on shifting needs. Such a restriction could limit the board’s ability to address water infrastructure. Critics say The $1 billion allocation provided by Proposition 4 would not provide sufficient funding to secure the state’s water future given the size of projected water funding needs.

The Legislature should invest at least $2.5 billion anually to ensure that the state can meet funding shortfalls for water projects. Proposition 4 should explicitly dedicate the majority of the annual funding to new water supply development. Without new water supply investments, the state risks overdependence and possible depletion of groundwater resources due to water exports from rural areas to urban centers.

Given that the largest cities in T exas face the biggest water infrastructure problems, requiring the majority of funding to be directed to new water supply would protect against political pressures from densely populated areas that could result in a focus on improving existing water infrastructure at the expense of new supply. Other critics say Providing funding through a constitutional amendment would reduce transparency and allow taxpayer dollars to be spent automatically without being subject to a biennial vote by the Legislature during the budget process.

Rather than funding water supply and infrastructure through a constitutionally-dedicated revenue stream under Proposition 4, surplus funds should be focused on property tax relief. Notes The enabling legislation for Proposition 4, SB 7 by Perry, will take effect September 1, 2025, except that certain provisions related to the allocation under Proposition 4 will take effect September 1, 2027, only if the proposition is approved by voters. The bill amends provisions related to the oversight and financing of water infrastructure and supply under the jurisdiction of TWDB.

House Research Organization Page 13 Proposition 5: Authorizing a property tax exemption for animal feed held for retail sale Digest Proposition 5 would amend Art. 8 of the T exas Constitution to authorize the Legislature to exempt from property tax animal feed held by a property owner for retail sale. The proposition also would authorize the Legislature to provide additional eligibility requirements for the exemption.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation tangible personal property consisting of animal feed held by the owner of the property for sale at retail.” Supporters say Proposition 5 would provide property tax relief for livestock producers throughout the state by allowing the Legislature to exempt animal feed from property tax. Under current law, animal feed is not taxed at any point, except when it is sitting in a store as inventory.

At the time of year when property taxes are calculated, feed sellers’ warehouses are generally fully stocked due to the seasonal needs of the agriculture business. As a result of these large inventories, sellers have to pay high taxes, which are then passed on to consumers through higher prices. Exempting feed held by retailers from property tax would reduce retailer costs and help make animal feed more affordable for consumers. HJR 99 by Harris (Nichols) Critics say Proposition 5 would give an unfair tax benefit to feed sellers by establishing a tax exemption for animal feed.

As almost all other forms of inventory are subject to property tax, the state should not create a special exemption for this particular type of inventory under the Tax Code. Notes The enabling legislation for Proposition 5, HB 1399 by Harris, will take effect on January 1, 2026, if Proposition 5 is approved by voters. The bill would entitle the owner of animal feed exempted from sales and use taxes under the Tax Code to receive a property tax exemption for the feed if it was held by the owner for retail sale.

Page 14 House Research Organization

House Research Organization Page 15 Proposition 6: Prohibiting a tax on securities transactions or occupations HJR 4 by Meyer (Parker) Digest Proposition 6 would amend Art. 8 of the T exas Constitution to prohibit the Legislature from imposing an occupation tax on a registered securities market operator or a tax on a securities transaction conducted by a registered securities market operator.

A “registered securities market operator” would include certain entities to the extent that they were regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or the United States Commodity Futures T rading Commission, including: • a self-regulatory organization, financial institution, broker, dealer, clearing agency, or transfer agent in effect on January 1, 2025; • a national securities exchange; • an alternative trading system, board of trade, commodity pool operator, derivatives clearing organization, electronic trading facility, or organized exchange in effect on January 1, 2025; • an affiliate, subsidiary, or facility of one of the above entities; or • a trade reporting facility in effect on January 1, 2025.

The proposition would not prohibit a change in the tax rate in existence on January 1, 2026, or the imposition of: • a general business tax measured by business activity; • a tax on the production of minerals; • a tax on insurance premiums; • sales and use taxes on tangible personal property or services; or • a fee based on the cost of processing or creating documents.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the legislature from enacting a law imposing an occupation tax on certain entities that enter into transactions conveying securities or imposing a tax on certain securities transactions.” Supporters say Proposition 6 would protect the earnings of T exas investors and boost the state’s economy by amending the state Constitution to prohibit taxes on securities transactions and occupations.

As the T exas Stock Exchange is in the process of being established and other national stock exchanges consider relocating to the state, it is crucial to prevent taxes that could have a detrimental effect on the T exas economy and future economic development. These financial-transaction taxes can lead to decreased trade volume, lower asset prices, less efficient markets, increased costs of capital, higher costs of consumer goods, and erosion of retirement savings. Proposition 6 would benefit T exas taxpayers and assure investors that T exas is committed to providing a low-tax, business-friendly environment.

While some have argued that the constitutional amendment should exclude certain high-value transactions from being eligible for an exemption, this could incentivize individuals to attempt to avoid the tax by making transactions under the established limit. A sunset provision requiring the Legislature to review and potentially overturn the prohibition or suggestions that other types of transactions be excluded from the tax exemption also would undermine the goal of the proposition, which is to incentivize businesses to come to T exas with the promise of security against a future financial transaction tax.

Page 16 House Research Organization Critics say Proposition 6 would make it more difficult for future legislatures to enact tax policy by including a prohibition on securities transaction taxes in the state Constitution. The state could experience a future economic downturn and could benefit from having a securities transaction or occupation tax to raise revenues. The constitutional amendment also should include a sunset provision that would allow the Legislature to reconsider the tax ban in 2034, preserving flexibility for future lawmakers to tax securities transactions if economic conditions change.

The proposition also should be amended to exempt high-value and high-frequency transactions from the tax prohibition, which would help to prevent blanket tax protections for wealthy stock traders and hedge funds.

House Research Organization Page 17 Proposition 7: Extending tax exemptions to the surviving spouses of certain veterans HJR 133 by T urner (Hughes) the result of qualifying diseases and conditions related to their military service under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive T oxics (PACT) Act, a 2022 federal law that expanded health benefits for veterans with toxic exposures and included presumptive service-connected conditions for such veterans.

While the state entitles a property tax exemption to veterans who have a 100 percent service-connected disability, which transfers to the veteran’s surviving spouse after the veteran’s death, the surviving spouses of veterans who were denied disability before the PACT Act have been excluded from receiving the exemptions they are entitled to. Proposition 7 would correct this discrepancy by awarding the appropriate tax relief to qualifying surviving spouses of deceased veterans, benefitting military communities.

Critics say Proposition 7 could burden other taxpayers with disproportionately higher tax rates, especially near military bases and surrounding areas where there are larger populations of veteran families who would qualify for the property tax exemption. Notes The enabling legislation for Proposition 7, HB 2508 by T urner, will take effect January 1, 2026, if Proposition 7 is approved by voters. The bill would allow surviving spouses of veterans who qualify to receive a tax exemption for a residence homestead. Background T exas Constitution Art. 8,

sec. 1-b governs residence homestead tax exemptions and limitations, and establishes provisions under which certain persons may receive a property tax exemption. Digest Proposition 7 would add sections 1-q and 1-r to Art. 8 of the T exas Constitution, authorizing the Legislature to entitle the surviving spouse of a U.S. Armed Services veteran whose death was the result of a condition or disease presumed under federal law to have been service- connected to an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the surviving spouse’s residence homestead.

The proposition also would authorize the Legislature to provide a surviving spouse who received the exemption and who subsequently qualified a different property as the surviving spouse’s residence homestead a property tax exemption of that homestead in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the exemption in the last year in which it was received. These exemptions would apply only to a surviving spouse who had not remarried since the veteran’s death.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a veteran who died as a result of a condition or disease that is presumed under federal law to have been service-connected.” Supporters say Proposition 7 would provide tax relief to the surviving spouses of deceased veterans whose deaths were

Page 18 House Research Organization

House Research Organization Page 19 Proposition 8: Prohibiting the Legislature from imposing a death or transfer tax Digest Proposition 8 would add

sec. 26 to Art. 8 of the T exas Constitution to prohibit the Legislature from imposing a state tax on the property of a deceased individual’s estate because of the individual’s death, which would include an estate, inheritance, or death tax. The Legislature also could not impose a state tax on the transfer of an estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or gift from an individual, family member, estate, or trust, including a tax on generation-skipping transfers, if the tax was not in effect on January 1, 2025.

Proposition 8 would prohibit the Legislature from increasing the tax rate or expanding the applicability to new parties of a transfer tax that was in effect on January 1, 2025. Proposition 8 would not prohibit the imposition or change in the rate or applicability of: • general business taxes based on business activity; • mineral production taxes; • taxes on the issuance of title insurance; • taxes in effect on January 1, 2016; • motor vehicle gift transfer taxes; or • ad valorem property taxes.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the legislature from imposing death taxes applicable to a decedent’s property or the transfer of an estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or gift.” Supporters say By prohibiting the imposition of a state death tax, Proposition 8 would help guarantee that heirs and beneficiaries could continue to retain property and assets after the passing of a loved one.

Death taxes can be burdensome and can lead to costly estate-planning and HJR 2 by Geren (Perry) tax-avoidance strategies, as capital that could be invested into improving a farm or family business must be set aside in preparation for the tax. Banning a state death tax could promote economic growth and job creation that could ultimately generate revenue for the state. The money that a person leaves at their death has already been taxed, and the government should be limited in the number of times it may tax the same assets.

Although T exas does not currently have a death tax, Proposition 8 would ensure that future legislatures could not institute one without the support of two-thirds of the members of both houses and voter approval. Critics say Amending the state Constitution to prohibit a death tax that does not currently exist and has not been proposed by the Legislature could hinder future legislatures from acting in the best interest of the state and lead to unintended consequences. Constitutional amendments should be reserved for the most critical matters concerning the state.

Page 20 House Research Organization

House Research Organization Page 21 HJR 1 by Meyer (Bettencourt) Background T exas Constitution Art. 8,

sec. 1(

g) authorizes the Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation tangible personal property that is held or used for the production of income and has a taxable value below the costs of the administration of the tax. Digest Proposition 9 would amend Art. 8,

sec. 1(

g) of the T exas Constitution to authorize the Legislature to exempt from property taxes $125,000 of the market value of tangible personal property held or used for the production of income, rather than the minimum amount sufficient to cover property tax administration costs.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation a portion of the market value of tangible personal property a person owns that is held or used for the production of income.” Supporters say Proposition 9 would contribute to economic growth and reduce administrative burdens for T exas business owners by authorizing the legislature to exempt $125,000 of business personal property, or tangible personal property held or used to produce income, from property taxes.

Proposition 9 and its enabling legislation, HB 9, would reduce the tax burden on businesses, allowing them to reinvest these savings to expand their operations. The proposition also would incentivize businesses to move to T exas or remain in the state to take advantage of the exemption. Additionally, the proposition could reduce the need for businesses to relocate inventory or equipment to avoid paying business personal property taxes on these items.

Proposition 9: Revising the business personal property tax exemption Complying with business personal property taxes can be onerous for small businesses, as it requires documenting all assets and reporting acquisition prices and dates as well as depreciation schedules. The comptroller’s tax formulas can be complicated and often overestimate the value of business personal property. Protesting these determinations also can be costly and time-consuming.

Proposition 9 would reduce these administrative and compliance burdens for qualifying business owners while also potentially relieving some administrative burdens for county appraisal districts by reducing the number of businesses on their tax rolls. While some have suggested that Proposition 9 would decrease state and local tax revenue, the impact would be minor. Most revenue from business personal property taxes comes from a small number of large businesses, which would still be required to pay taxes on all business personal property over $125,000.

Although local governments could experience some reduction in tax revenue, the potential economic benefits resulting from the proposition would outweigh these losses. HB 9, also would include provisions that aggregate the value of all business personal property with taxable situs in each separate location in the taxing unit. These provisions would prevent a single taxpayer from splitting up business personal property accounts to take advantage of multiple tax exemptions.

The enabling legislation also provides for the tracing of common ownership of related business entities, which would prevent abuse of the tax exemption and ensure that the intent of Proposition 9 was upheld. Critics say Proposition 9 would negatively impact county and local government revenues. Counties, municipalities, and special districts could raise tax rates to offset the loss in property tax revenue resulting from revising the exemption, potentially redistributing the property tax burden to homeowners.

Page 22 House Research Organization Proposition 9 also could reduce the state’s revenue. The proposition would reduce property tax revenue for school districts, which the state would have to make up for through tax compression formulas. Although school districts would not bear the exemption’s impact, Proposition 9 could cause a net loss in general revenue for the state. Other critics say Proposition 9 does not go far enough to provide tax relief to T exas businesses.

Business owners are already required to pay sales taxes on property purchased for use in their business or trade, as well as real property taxes, franchise taxes, and federal income taxes. The state has a significant revenue surplus that should be returned to taxpayers, and a higher exemption would help achieve that goal. Notes The enabling legislation for Proposition 9, HB 9 by Meyer, would provide additional rules for administering the business personal property tax exemption authorized by the proposition. The bill will take effect January 1, 2026, if the constitutional amendment is approved by voters.

House Research Organization Page 23 Proposition 10: Authorizing a property tax exemption for loss due to fire Digest Proposition 10 would amend Art. 8,

sec. 1-b of the T exas Constitution to authorize the Legislature to establish a temporary property tax exemption of the appraised value of an improvement to a person’s residence homestead that was completely destroyed by a fire. The Legislature could prescribe the duration of the exemption and could provide for additional eligibility requirements.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of the appraised value of an improvement to a residence homestead that is completely destroyed by a fire.” Supporters say By allowing the Legislature to establish a temporary property tax exemption for residential homeowners whose property was completely destroyed by a fire, Proposition 10 would provide relief for homeowners experiencing the tragic loss of their homes.

Currently, there is no process to account for major changes in the property’s value after the property is assessed on January 1 of each year, so the property is taxed at the same value even if it has burned down. Proposition 10 would improve the appraisal process to account for such changes. Critics say Rather than reducing property taxes through measures like Proposition 10, the Legislature should eliminate property taxes entirely. SJR 84 by Bettencourt (Hefner) Notes The enabling legislation for Proposition 10, SB 467 by Paxton, will take effect January 1, 2026, if the proposition is approved by voters.

The bill would entitle a person to a property tax exemption of the appraised value of an improvement to the person’s residence homestead that was completely destroyed by a fire, was a habitable dwelling before the fire, and remained uninhabitable for at least 30 days after the fire. The exemption would apply only for the tax year in which the fire occurred.

Page 24 House Research Organization

House Research Organization Page 25 Proposition 11: Increasing certain additional residence homestead exemptions Digest Proposition 11 would amend Art. 8, sec 1-b(

c) of the T exas Constitution to increase the additional school district residence homestead tax exemption from $10,000 to $60,000 of the market value of a residence homestead of a person who is disabled and of a person age 65 or older. The constitutional amendment would take effect for the tax year beginning January 1, 2025.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district of the market value of the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled.” Supporters say By increasing the residence homestead property tax exemption for individuals who are elderly or disabled, Proposition 11 would increase housing affordability and provide protection for a vulnerable population. Many individuals who qualify for this exemption live on a fixed income and face rising medical insurance costs.

Individuals who are elderly or disabled also often have to make expensive modifications to their homes, such as adding ramps or accessibility features to accommodate walkers, wheelchairs, and other medical devices. Providing an increase in the homestead exemption for these individuals would help them to stay in their homes and their neighborhoods and further contribute to continuity and stability within the community.

Proposition 11 would provide visible tax relief to a large segment of the state’s population, as taxpayers can clearly see the reduction in their tax bill through an increased homestead exemption, which encourages support for the tax system overall. School districts also would not experience a reduction in funding because SB 23, the enabling legislation for Proposition 11, provides additional state revenue to T exas school districts to account for any losses due to the increase in the homestead exemption.

Critics say The additional tax cut provided by Proposition 11 is unnecessary as the Legislature has already cut taxes repeatedly in recent years. Spending more state revenue to provide tax cuts would reduce what is available for public services such as school funding, healthcare, and infrastructure needs. The state should also not rely too heavily on the temporary budget surplus, which may not be available if there is an economic downturn in the future. If the Legislature wanted to provide more tax relief, it should do so in a way that benefits more individuals than just homeowners.

An increase in the residence homestead exemption would not directly benefit renters, who comprise a significant portion of the state’s population. Furthermore, creating an exemption for individuals over 65 would not necessarily offer tax relief to low-income individuals, as not all seniors live on low or fixed incomes.

Notes Art. 1 of SB 23 by Bettencourt, the enabling legislation for Proposition 11, would increase the additional school district residence homestead tax exemption for a person who was elderly or disabled and provide state assistance to school districts for funding reductions related to property tax adjustments if Proposition 11 is approved by voters. Arts. 2 and 3 of the bill, which amend the process by which a school district’s tax rate is calculated and establish transitional provisions to account for changes due to the tax exemption, took effect immediately upon the bill’s passage.

SJR 85 by Bettencourt (Meyer)

Page 26 House Research Organization

House Research Organization Page 27 Proposition 12: Revising the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and review tribunals Powers and duties. The proposition would specify that SCJC could impose discipline if it found that a person engaged in wilful or persistent conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of a judge’s duties or for other good cause, rather than solely on a finding of good cause. The proposition would also amend SCJC’s authority to respond if it found that a judge or justice engaged in misconduct.

SCJC’s discretion to issue an order of private admonition, warning, reprimand, censure, or other educational requirements would be limited to individuals who had never been issued such an order and in response to a complaint or report other than one alleging a criminal offense. Review tribunals. The proposition would amend selection procedures for the seven justices of the courts of appeals who made up the members of a review tribunal.

Each court of appeals would no longer be required to designate one of its members for inclusion in the list from which the chief justice of the Supreme Court made selections, and the chief justice would no longer choose by lot. The review tribunal would be authorized to order suspension without pay for a specified period as a punishment for judicial misconduct. The proposition would require, rather than allow, an order of the review tribunal for involuntary retirement for disability or for removal to prohibit a person from holding judicial office in the future.

The proposition would specify that a suspension of a judge who engaged in misconduct could be a suspension with or without pay, pending the final disposition of the charge. Background Art. 5,

sec. 1-a of the T exas Constitution establishes provisions for the retirement, compensation, discipline, and removal of state justices and judges. The

section also establishes the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, including its composition, powers, duties, and procedures. Digest Proposition 12 would amend Art. 5,

sec. 1-a by modifying the membership, powers, and duties of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) and the tribunals that review SCJC recommendations. Membership. The proposition would revise the composition of SCJC by removing the condition that the six members appointed by the T exas Supreme Court be judges of certain courts. Instead, the Supreme Court would be required to appoint six judges or justices of courts in the state, with the advice and consent of the Senate, two of whom would have to be trial court judges.

The proposition would increase the number of members who were citizens appointed by the governor from five to seven, would remove the condition that they not be licensed to practice law nor hold any salaried public office, and would increase the minimum age of eligibility from 30 to 35. The proposition also would remove the requirement that two members must be members of the State Bar who had practiced for over 10 years.

Rather than prohibiting a judge who was a member of SCJC from residing or holding a judgeship in the same appellate district as another judge who was a member, the proposition would prohibit two judicial members of SCJC from being judges in the same type of court. SJR 27 by Huffman (Leach)

Page 28 House Research Organization Initial terms. Proposition 12 would include a temporary provision authorizing the Supreme Court and the governor to appoint new commissioners to SCJC to serve staggered terms beginning January 1, 2026, as provided in the temporary provision. The terms of commissioners serving before January 1, 2026, would expire July 1, 2026. Certain transitional provisions would account for complaints submitted prior to these appointments.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the membership of the tribunal to review the commission’s recommendations, and the authority of the commission, the tribunal, and the T exas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.” Supporters say Proposition 12 would promote transparency and accountability in the judicial system by reforming the composition and authority of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which was created to promote the integrity, competence, and impartiality of the judiciary.

SCJC has not sufficiently protected the rights of T exas citizens who have experienced the consequences of abuses of judicial power and failures of competency. The proposed constitutional amendment would institute common-sense reforms that would allow judicial misconduct to be addressed fairly and swiftly. The proposition would improve transparency by restricting the option for SCJC to issue private sanctions. It would include more public representation on the commission to increase independence and fairness in judicial oversight.

Additionally, the proposition and its enabling legislation, SB 293, would require more practical action to be taken to determine if a judge’s decision was motivated by an improper motive, such as bias, revenge, or anger, and to ensure that procedural requirements that maintain fundamental rights were upheld. Critics say Proposition 12 could create an opportunity for more politicization and partisanship in the judicial discipline process by increasing the number of members who were citizens appointed by the governor.

Notes The enabling legislation for Proposition 12, SB 293 by Huffman, would amend the Government Code to increase judicial compensation, amend SCJC procedures related to complaints, investigations, and formal proceedings, require reporting of certain judicial transparency information, and establish timelines for certain judicial proceedings.

House Research Organization Page 29 Proposition 13: Increasing the residence homestead property tax exemption to $140,000 Background T exas Constitution Art. 8,

sec. 1-b(

c) exempts $100,000 of the market value of a residence homestead from ad valorem taxation for general public school purposes. It establishes requirements for the exemption, including that the Legislature provide for formulas to protect school districts against all or part of the revenue loss incurred. Tax Code

sec. 11.13(

b) provides for the same exemptions in statute. Digest Proposition 13 would amend Art. 8,

sec. 1-b(

c) to increase the residence homestead property tax exemption from $100,000 to $140,000 of the market value of a residence homestead. This amendment would take effect for the tax year beginning January 1, 2025. The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment to increase the amount of the exemption of residence homesteads from ad valorem taxation by a school district from $100,000 to $140,000.” Supporters say Proposition 13 would provide T exas homeowners with significant tax relief and encourage economic growth by increasing the school district residence homestead property tax exemption to $140,000.

School taxes amount to the largest share of property owners’ tax growth, and taxpayers need additional tax relief, as many of the gains from tax relief passed in previous legislative sessions have been lost due to increases in tax rates by local governments. An increase in the homestead tax exemption would provide broad-based tax relief to all homeowners and would be a meaningful tax benefit to a large number of T exans. The SJR 2 by Bettencourt (Meyer) proposition would particularly benefit elderly homeowners, many of whom live on fixed incomes and face increasing healthcare expenses and rising insurance rates.

Proposition 13 also would help first-time home buyers, who often do not have excess money to spend on taxes and normally have substantial mortgage payments in addition to other home expenses. Additionally, the proposition would benefit the economy by encouraging home purchases and boosting the real estate market. Proposition 13 would not cause a loss of funding for school districts as a result of the higher exemption because the state would make up the difference using general revenue under state aid formulas provided in current law and the enabling legislation, SB 4.

Proposition 13 would provide lasting, meaningful tax relief to a broad cross-

section of the tax base while ensuring maintenance of funding for important priorities. Critics say Proposition 13 would reduce the revenue available for funding public services and exclude renters and commercial property owners from the tax benefits. The state would benefit more by investing its current surplus in public services rather than providing more tax cuts. If the state did not have sufficient revenue to maintain the cost of the increased exemption in future years, public services and school funding could be jeopardized.

Proposition 13 would only provide tax relief to homeowners, which could shift the tax burden onto renters and commercial property owners. The Legislature should pursue a tax relief strategy that targets renters and lower-income individuals, such as a renter’s rebate program or an exemption tied to household income.

Page 30 House Research Organization An increase in the homestead exemption also would increase the number of homeowners who do not pay school property taxes. The proposition could incentivize these homeowners to vote for higher local tax rates and more bonds because they would not have to bear the burden of those local property tax increases. Other critics say The Legislature should do more to return money to the taxpayers and provide a greater increase to the residence homestead tax exemption.

Additionally, the tax relief provided by the increase in the homestead exemption should be coupled with tax reforms that protect taxpayer gains from being eroded by increases in tax rates by local governments. The proposition and its enabling legislation should include a limit on local government spending and tax increases. Notes The enabling legislation for Proposition 13, SB 4 by Bettencourt, would make various changes to the Tax Code to increase the residence homestead tax exemption and grant additional state aid to school districts to compensate for lost revenue as a result of the increased exemption.

The bill would: • provide funding for school districts to account for the effects of increased exemptions and reduced compressed tax rates from bills passed in previous sessions; • add certain temporary provisions to reduce local revenue in excess of entitlement for the 2025-2026 school year; • establish transitional tax year procedures for tax assessors, chief appraisers, and taxing units to account for changes as a result of the proposition; and • require a provisional tax bill to be sent to taxpayers to inform them of the amount that their tax bills would be reduced if the proposition were to pass.

SB 4 took immediate effect, except for Art. 1, which will take effect if the proposition is approved by voters.

House Research Organization Page 31 Proposition 14: Establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of T exas and fund Background Texas Constitution Art. 8,

sec. 6 prohibits the withdrawal of money from the state treasury except in pursuance of a specific appropriation made by law. Certain special funds held outside general revenue may be spent without legislative appropriation. Di gest Proposition 14 would add

sec. 68 to Art. 3 of the Texas Constitution, requiring the Legislature to establish the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT) to award grants to institutions of learning, advanced medical research facilities, public or private persons, and collaboratives in Texas to provide money for: • r esearch into the causes of, prevention of, and treatment and rehabilitation for dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders; • facilities, equipment, and other costs related to such r esearch; and • pr evention programs and strategies to mitigate the detrimental health impacts of these diseases and disorders.

DPRIT also would support learning institutions and advanced medical research facilities and collaboratives for all stages of discovering the causes of, mitigating symptoms of, and improving advanced treatment access for these diseases and disorders. Additionally, DPRIT would be created to establish the appropriate standards and oversight bodies to ensure proper use of funding, including facilities development. The members of the governing bodies of DPRIT would be authorized to serve six-year terms.

SJR 3 by Huffman (Craddick) Proposition 14 also would establish the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund as a special fund held in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund and administered by DPRIT . Money in the fund could be used without further appropriation only for purposes authorized by general law. The fund would consist of: • $3 billion, transferr ed from the general revenue fund on January 1, 2026; • appr opriations, credits, or transfers made by the Legislature; and • gifts, grants, and donations, including federal grants.

M oney in the fund could only be used for: • grants for r esearch on dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders, and for research facilities and opportunities; • dev eloping therapies, protocols, pharmaceuticals, or procedures to mitigate symptoms of these diseases and disorders; • the pur chase, construction, or renovation of facilities by or on behalf of a state agency or grant recipient; and • DPRIT operations, including reasonable administrativ e expenses.

The Legislature would be authorized to appropriate no more than $300 million from the fund in a state fiscal year, excluding unspent funds carried forward. Before awarding a grant, the recipient would have to provide matching funds equal to half the grant amount. The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the

Page 32 House Research Organization Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of T exas, establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund to provide money for research on and prevention and treatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders in this state, and transferring to that fund $3 billion from state general revenue.” Supporters say By establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of T exas, Proposition 14 would help to make T exas a leader in combating dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders.

The proposition would allow for a major investment in research focused on the prevention and treatment of such diseases, improving the health and quality of life of millions of T exans and benefiting the state’s economy. As life expectancy continues to rise and the elderly population increases, the impact of dementia and related diseases is growing, and the need for increased investment in research, prevention, and treatment is urgent. Dementia is a leading cause of death in the U.S., while T exas ranks high among other states in Alzheimer’s cases and deaths.

Lack of neurological medical care is especially acute in rural areas of the state, and the funding provided by Proposition 14 would improve the ability of individuals in these regions to access critical care. DPRIT also would help to attract top research talent to the state and create high-quality jobs.

Proposition 14 would accelerate innovation in dementia research by instituting a program model similar to that of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of T exas (CPRIT), the state’s institute for funding cancer research, which has successfully attracted excellent cancer researchers and doctors to T exas and provided a significant economic return on the state’s investment. By advancing efforts to mitigate the causes and effects of dementia, DPRIT could help relieve caregiving costs in the state, which are often a long-term financial and emotional burden on families.

DPRIT also would augment current research efforts by facilitating collaboration among medical and scientific experts. T exas’ business-friendly regulatory environment provides advantages that ideally position the state to take on the challenge of combating dementia and become a major center of biomedical research. While some have questioned the place of government in funding such research, T exas’ current budget surplus presents a unique opportunity to improve the lives of millions in T exas and beyond.

Additionally, DPRIT could facilitate types of research that might not be pursued by private entities alone, such as projects focused on prevention that may not be especially profitable and are less likely to be prioritized. Critics say While combating dementia is a worthwhile goal, Proposition 14 would create an open-ended, long-term financial commitment for taxpayers by funding efforts outside the proper scope of government.

Private industry, nonprofits, and universities are capable of addressing this problem without government involvement in medical research, and there are other, more appropriate priorities for public investment. The proposition also would create a new state bureaucracy without establishing clear spending limits or other sufficient accountability measures to ensure that research funds were used appropriately. Proposition 14 would model DPRIT on CPRIT , which itself has faced problems with a lack of accountability in the use of public money.

Under Proposition 14 and its enabling legislation, DPRIT would involve more political appointees and bureaucratic layers than CPRIT , which could create inefficiency, allow for undue political influence, and lead to inappropriate use of public funds. Notes Proposition 14’s enabling legislation, SB 5 by Huffman, would establish the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of T exas, including oversight requirements for the institute, such as annual reporting and independent financial audits. SB 5 will take effect December 1, 2025, only if Proposition 14 is approved by voters.

Contingent on voter approval of the proposition and the enactment of SB 5, SB 1 by Huffman, the biennial state budget, requires the comptroller of public accounts to transfer $3 billion by January 1, 2026, to the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund. The budget also would appropriate $300 million from the fund to DPRIT in fiscal years 2026 and 2027 to implement the bill.

House Research Organization Page 33 Proposition 15: Affirming the rights and responsibilities of parents Background T exas Constitution Art. 1, the Bill of Rights, governs the right to worship, the right of trial by jury, and protection against imprisonment for debt, among other state constitutional rights. Digest Proposition 15 would add

sec. 37 to Art. 1 of the T exas Constitution to 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.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children.” Supporters say By enshrining in the T exas Constitution the right of a parent to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s children, Proposition 15 would provide a clear and solid legal foundation to protect parental rights. Courts have long recognized that parents have a constitutionally protected right to make decisions for their children.

This proposition would codify longstanding case law in the T exas Constitution to ensure that this important right could not be removed or diminished by future court opinions. The parent-child relationship is rooted in natural law and should be safeguarded. Proposition 15 also would make accessing the right simpler, less costly, and easier for parents and lawyers, allowing them to cite the Constitution to help defend their rights in court. Critics say Proposition 15 focuses too heavily on the rights of parents without including language to ensure that children’s rights and best interests are protected.

The proposition should further emphasize the duties and responsibilities of parents to their children so that parental rights cannot override fundamental children’s rights, such as the right to basic healthcare or mental health support, as well as the ability of children to have their psychological, emotional, and social needs met. Other critics say While protecting parental rights is essential, Proposition 15 contains language that is too vague and, as worded, could impose obligations on parents or undermine parents’ rights if it were determined that parents have not met their responsibilities.

SJR 34 by Hughes (Frank)

Page 34 House Research Organization

House Research Organization Page 35 Proposition 16: Prohibiting noncitizens from voting Digest Proposition 16 would amend Art. 6,

sec. 1 of the T exas Constitution by adding persons who are not citizens of the United States to the classes of persons prohibited from voting in the state. The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment clarifying that a voter must be a United States citizen.” Supporters say By explicitly prohibiting individuals who are not U.S. citizens from voting in the T exas Constitution, Proposition 16 would protect T exans’ right to vote, a sacred liberty that servicemen and servicewomen, minority communities, and naturalized immigrants have worked hard to secure. Art. 6,

sec. 1 of the T exas Constitution prohibits people under age 18, those who are determined mentally incompetent, and those convicted of a felony from voting, but does not address noncitizens, which could suggest that citizenship is not a priority qualification to vote in T exas. Voting is a fundamental right that demands a high standard for its security, and the proposition would provide for its protection. Proposition 16 would not expand state authority, as the Election Code already requires a voter to be a citizen of the United States.

Codifying this voting requirement in the T exas Constitution would improve voter confidence, eliminate confusion, and provide clear guidance for enforcement. Some cities in other states have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections, and the proposition would safeguard T exas against this trend. Other states, varying in political ideology, geography, and demographics, have also adopted constitutional amendments to prohibit nooncitizens from voting. Proposition 16 would give T exas voters the opportunity to adopt this proactive measure to protect the integrity of the ballot box.

Critics say Prohibiting noncitizens from voting under Proposition 16 would be unnecessary, as state and federal laws already clearly limit the right to vote to American citizens. Passing a redundant constitutional amendment could confuse voters who might be led to believe that noncitizen voting is a bigger problem than it is. In addition, the proposition could lead to uncertainty among certain voters, especially those in historically marginalized communities, about their voting status and hinder some people’s participation in the democratic process in the communities where they live and contribute.

Noncitizen voting in T exas is rare and already addressed through the existing legal system for voting offenses, indicating that the current system is effective in protecting the right to vote. As such, there is no need to amend the state Constitution. Unnecessarily approving the proposition also could set a precedent for nonessential expansion of state authority through constitutional amendments, which should be reserved for limited, necessary uses. The T exas Constitution is not for taking a symbolic stand or responding to trends.

State resources should instead be spent on addressing other important issues in T exas. SJR 37 by Birdwell (Noble)

Page 36 House Research Organization

House Research Organization Page 37 Proposition 17: Authorizing a tax exemption for certain border security infrastructure Digest Proposition 17 would add

sec. 1-y to Art. 8 of the T exas Constitution, authorizing the Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation the market value of real property located in a county that borders Mexico that arose from the installation or construction on the property of border security infrastructure and related improvements. The proposition would authorize the Legislature to define “border security infrastructure” by general law and prescribe additional eligibility requirements for the exemption.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment to authrorize the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the amount of the market value of real property located in a county that borders the United Mexican States that arises from the installation or construction on the property of border security infrastructure and related improvements.” Supporters say Proposition 17 would incentivize property owners to volunteer their property for border security enhancements by exempting a portion of the market value of a person’s property from property taxes that result from building or installing border security infrastructure.

While T exas pays a one-time fee to property owners at the T exas-Mexico border who voluntarily sign easement contracts to host the border wall, there is currently no tax exemption available to property owners for such border security infrastructure. Improvements can lead to a higher appraisal value, and some landowners may hesitate to install border security measures due to potential increases in taxable property value.

By providing an exemption for the market value of the property associated with border security infrastructure, the proposition would encourage private property owners to support border security efforts without facing increased tax burdens. The tax exemption would be based on the value of the infrastructure installed on the property and any increase in property value from the improvements and would not reduce the appraised value of the existing property.

Additionally, the amendment would not require a property owner to install border security infrastructure and would only apply to property in counties along the T exas-Mexico border. Individuals who volunteer to help establish and maintain border security infrastructure on their property should be rewarded for contributing to the state’s efforts to secure the southern border. By allowing the Legislature to define border security infrastructure and prescribe additional eligibility requirements, the proposition also would grant more precise statutory control and administrative clarity.

Critics say The state should not provide tax exemptions that incentivize further border security infrastructure construction on private land, especially for state-supported construction of walls or the installation of surveillance equipment. The tax exemption authorized under Proposition 17 could result in revenue reductions for local governments by removing property value from the tax rolls, which would narrow the tax base and shift the tax burden onto other property owners. The Legislature should focus on providing broad-based tax relief rather than carving out certain limited exemptions.

HJR 34 by Guillen (Middleton)

Page 38 House Research Organization

HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION Steering Committee: Alma Allen, Acting Chairman Trent Ashby Angie Chen Button Liz Campos Mary González Donna Howard Ann Johnson Ken King Stan Lambert Jeff Leach Oscar Longoria J. M. Lozano Toni Rose John Smithee David Spiller John H. Reagan Building Room 420 P .O.

Box 12910 Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 463-0752 www.hro.house.texas.gov Corinna Archer Kinsman, Manager; Donna Fisher, Administrative Clerk; Madeleine Keith, Kelsey Walker, Editors; Abigail Jablon, Luke Landtroop, Matthew Lowe, Kevin Lunkenheimer, Legislative Analysts; Kiera Eriksen-McAuliffe , Sumaiya Malik, Legislative Analyst/ Editors; Alex Gonzalez, Sarah Orman, Session Editors; Christian DeSouza, Michelle De La Cruz, Sydney Mike- Mayer, Megan Dean, Kaden Stout, Nolan Oldham, Session Researcher/Writers Staff:

Document details

Collection	Texas House Research Organization
Citation	9ebc53d5862f55da48d960ea29b020e5a017b55c
Type	commentary
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	TX_HRO
Identifier	9ebc53d5862f55da48d960ea29b020e5a017b55c

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).