Information

TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

TFR TEXANS FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TTP TRUE TEXAS PROJECT
TPR TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH

TFR:

You:

Proposition 1

(SJR 59): Creating funds to support the capital needs of educational programs offered by the Texas State Technical College System.

Oppose

SJR 59 proposes a constitutional amendment to create two new state-managed funds specifically for capital investments and infrastructure at the Texas State Technical College System. These funds would exist outside the general revenue stream and receive continuous funding with investment returns distributed annually. Unlike most state programs, this funding would be automatically appropriated without further legislative approval, removing oversight The bill repeals an existing safeguard that caps TSTC’s allocation from constitutionally dedicated higher education funding. The bill limits flexibility in budgeting, and ties the hands of both future taxpayers and future legislatures. It also expands government spending obligations and increases the risk of future calls for similar carveouts by other institutions. This amendment entrenches a long-term funding stream in the constitution that lacks strong taxpayer accountability measures. Taxpayers will end up footing the bill for permanent infrastructure commitments regardless of TSTC’s performance or need, at a time when the legislature should be prioritizing property tax relief

  

TTP:

Oppose

Comment: This amendment creates a “fund” outside the state budget and legislative oversight. Embedding such spending in the constitution creates a perpetual spending scheme with no legislative control. While we support workforce education, this is not the way to expand land acquisition and equipment for the TX State Technical College System. Such expenditures should be handled in the normal statutory process, providing legislative oversight and transparency.

  

TPR:

Oppose

While expanding access to workforce education supports individual liberty and personal responsibility, embedding this preferential funding mechanism in the Constitution undermines limited government and transparency. A statutory approach with normal budget oversight would better uphold fiscal accountability.

  

Proposition 2

(SJR 18): Banning taxes on the realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust.

TFR:

Support

TTP:

Support

Comment: This proposition keeps future legislatures from imposing a tax on capital gains. Capital gains taxes are not consistent with TTP’s core values of limited government, and personal responsibility.

  

TPR:

Support

This amendment would permanently prohibit the Texas Legislature from imposing any tax on capital gains, whether realized or unrealized. Texas currently does not have such a tax, so the measure functions as a safeguard to preserve the state’s existing low-tax structure.

  

You:

Proposition 3

(SJR 5): Denying bail under certain circumstances to persons accused of certain offenses punishable as a felony.

SJR 18 strengthens Texas’ pro-growth tax structure by constitutionally banning any tax on capital gains, whether realized or unrealized. This protects individuals, families, and small businesses from future efforts to tax investment income, which could stifle entrepreneurship, savings, and job creation. By providing long-term tax certainty, the amendment helps Texas maintain its competitive edge as a destination for investors and businesses.

TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

TFR TEXANS FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TTP TRUE TEXAS PROJECT
TPR TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH

TFR:

TTP:

Neutral

Support

SJR 5 proposes a constitutional amendment to the Texas Constitution that would allow judges or magistrates to deny bail to individuals accused of specific felonies, such as murder, capital murder, and aggravated sexual assault, under certain conditions. The denial of bail would require a hearing where the state demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that bail cannot prevent the accused from missing court, or by clear and convincing evidence that it cannot ensure community safety. If bail is granted, judges must set conditions to prevent nonappearance and ensure safety, supported by a written justification.

  

Comment: This proposition would amend Article I, Section 11, of our State Constitution to expand the options available to officials setting bail to include the option to deny bail under certain extraordinary circumstances. Specifically, it would give magistrates the ability to deny bail to individuals accused of committing: (1) a sexual offense punishable as a felony of the first degree; (2) a violent offense as defined by the Texas Constitution; or (3) continuous trafficking of persons. We believe in limited government, but the judicial system has failed us on this issue time after time. Too many violent criminals have been released on bail by liberal judges, only to go out and commit more violent crimes. Judges need better direction on denying bail when public safety is at risk, so we support this amendment.

  

TPR:

Oppose

This amendment would authorize judges to deny bail to individuals charged with a list of serious felonies, such as murder, aggravated assault, and human trafficking, if the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that release would endanger the public or risk flight. It embeds mandatory bail denial for certain charges into the state constitution, with limited discretion for judges.

  

You:

(HJR 7, enabling legislation HB 16): Dedicating a portion of state sales and use Proposition 4 tax revenues to the Texas water fund and to provide for the allocation and use

of that revenue.

TFR:

Oppose

TTP:

Oppose

Comment: This amendment puts $1 billion per year from sales tax revenue into a new water fund to support infrastructure projects. The legislation has it set to automatically happen each year until 2035, at which time the legislature could extend it. While we realize that water infrastructure is vital, we believe there are better ways to fund it than embedding $1 billion of spending into the Constitution for the next 10 years (or more). Once a fund like this gets started, it rarely is withdrawn. This resolution violates TTP’s principle of fiscal responsibility and limited government. There are better solutions to addressing the state’s water issues. At the very least, an appropriation for such projects should be done on a biennium basis with oversight and trnasparency, not baked into the Constitution.

HJR 7 seeks to constitutionally earmark up to $1 billion per year from state sales tax revenue for the Texas Water Fund. While water infrastructure is important, this measure removes large sums from the general revenue fund limiting legislative flexibility. It represents a long- term commitment of taxpayer dollars without sufficient legislative oversight. By constitutionally dedicating funds, lawmakers reduce the legislature’s ability to prioritize spending based on changing needs, and ties the hands of both future taxpayers and future legislatures. The lack of reforms or spending guardrails on the Water Fund also raises concerns about transparency and efficiency. With the state’s history of under-delivering on accountability in large infrastructure funds, this amendment risks growing government bureaucracy without guaranteeing outcomes. Voters should be cautious of creating another permanent spending mechanism carved out of the budget

TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

TFR TEXANS FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TTP TRUE TEXAS PROJECT
TPR TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH

TPR:	Oppose	This amendment would divert up to $1 billion per year in existing sales tax revenue into a new Texas Water Fund to support water infrastructure projects. The funding would occur automatically each year, bypassing the normal legislative appropriations process, and would continue until 2035 unless extended by the legislature.
You:
(HJR 99, enabling legislation HB 1399): Exempting from ad valorem taxation Proposition 5 tangible personal property consisting of animal feed held by the owner of theproperty for sale at retail.
TFR:	Support	HJR 99 proposes a constitutional amendment to allow the Texas Legislature to exempt animal feed held for retail sale from property taxes. Right now, while feed is tax-free during production and use, it is taxed when held as inventory in stores. Removing this tax would reduce costs for feed suppliers and help lower prices for farmers and ranchers, who are already dealing with rising operational expenses. While providing specific exemptions like this comes with some reticence, this amendment prevents double¬ taxation , and supports small agricultural businesses without expandinggovernment spending.
TTP:	Support	Comment: We generally oppose amendments that grant additional exemptions from property taxes, because it puts an additional burden on the rest of the property taxpayers. This one is fairly benign, and it does not require the exemption, but permits future legislation to implement it should they choose to do so. Certain other agricultural products are already exempted.
TPR:	Support	This amendment would give the Texas Legislature the authority to exempt animal feed held for retail sale from local property taxes. It does not require the exemption but permits future legislation to implement it, potentially correcting a tax inconsistency within the agricultural supply chain.
You:
(HJR 4): Prohibits the Legislature from imposing an occupation tax on certain Proposition 6 entities that enter into transactions conveying securities or imposing a tax oncertain securities transactions.
TFR:	Support	HJR 4 protects investors and financial markets by amending the Texas Constitution to prohibit new taxes on securities transactions or on the institutions that process them. By doing so, it safeguards retirement accounts and public pensions from decreased returns caused by higher transaction costs. The measure ensures Texas remains an attractive state for financial operations by rejecting burdensome taxation that could drive business away.
TTP:	Support	Comment: As with Proposition 2, this amendment binds future legislatures from imposing taxes on securities transactions or creating new occupation taxes on financial market operators. Taxes on transactions and occupation taxes are not consistent with TTP’s core values of limited government, and personal responsibility.
TPR:	Support	This amendment would preemptively prohibit the Texas Legislature from imposing taxes on securities transactions or from creating new occupation taxes on registered financial market operators like brokers and exchanges. It aims to shield investors and financial institutions from future taxation in this space.
You:

TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

TFR TEXANS FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TTP TRUE TEXAS PROJECT
TPR TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH

Proposition 7(HJR 133): Providing 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 to have been service-connected.
TFR:	Support	HJR 133 seeks to extend property tax exemptions to the surviving spouses of veterans who died due to service-connected conditions, addressing a current gap in the law by supporting those service members and their families who have sacrificed for our nation. By allowing the legislature to provide partial or full exemptions on the market value of a homestead, it ensures that the tax relief is continued for these families and helps to protect surviving spouses from losing their home.
TTP:	Oppose	Comment: This amendment is another carveout for a specific group of people, putting further burdens on other taxpayers. While we honor and appreciate our veterans who died in service, a better way to honor their surviving spouses would be to eliminate property taxes all together, which TTP has long supported.
TPR:	Support	This amendment allows the Legislature to exempt the homestead of a surviving spouse of a veteran who died from a presumed service connected condition. The exemption would continue if the spouse remains unmarried and moves to a new qualifying homestead, carrying forward the previous tax relief.
You:
(HJR 2): Prohibiting the Legislature from imposing death taxes applicable to a Proposition 8 decedent’s property or the transfer of an estate, inheritance, legacy,succession, or gift.
TFR:	Support	HJR 2 proposes a constitutional amendment to permanently ban estate, inheritance, and gift taxes in Texas. This measure prevents future legislatures from taxing wealth transfers after death, protecting families, small businesses, and farmers from unexpected tax burdens. It safeguards private property rights and encourages investment and savings. Locking this policy into the constitution helps provide long-term financial certainty for taxpayers and families.
TTP:	Support	Comment: This is another amendment that seeks to bind future legislatures from imposing an estate or inheritance tax. Texas currently doesn’t have such taxes, and this amendment would protect against future imposition of an inheritance tax.
TPR:	Support	This amendment would permanently prohibit the Texas Legislature from imposing estate, inheritance, or gift taxes. Texas does not currently levy such taxes, so this measure acts as a safeguard to prevent future reintroduction.
You:
(HJR 1, enabling legislation HB 9): Exempting from ad valorem taxation a Proposition 9 portion of the market value of tangible personal property a person owns that isheld or used for the production of income.
TFR:	Support	HJR 1 offers tax relief to small business owners and entrepreneurs by allowing a $125,000 exemption on income-generating tangible personal property.This constitutional amendment simplifies compliance, reduces bureaucratic costs, and incentivizes productivity. It cuts down on burdensome taxation that can stifle economic growth, especially for small operations. This is a pro-growth, pro¬ business reform that respects taxpayers and limits government overreach.

TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

TFR TEXANS FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TTP TRUE TEXAS PROJECT
TPR TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH

TTP:	Support	Comment: This amendment authorizes businesses to exempt up to $250,000 of market value of income generating property (like equipment, tools, etc). The current exemption is $2,500. Consider it comparable to the homestead exemptions on homeowners’ primary residence. While we would prefer to have property taxes eliminated, we support this amendment that would at least give relief to business owners who pay taxes on personal property. We do not consider this a carveout. The exemption will help small business, and encourage entrepreneurial economic development.
TPR:	Support	This amendment would allow the Legislature to exempt up to $250,000 of the market value of income-generating personal property, such as business equipment or tools, from local property taxes. The exemption would ease the tax burden on small businesses and the self¬ employed.
You:
(SJR 84): Providing a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of the Proposition 10 appraised value of an improvement to a residence homestead that iscompletely destroyed by a fire.
TFR:	Support	SJR 84 offers a narrowly tailored constitutional amendment to protect homeowners from being hit with property taxes on structures that no longer exist due to fire damage. It empowers the Legislature to determine the specific rules and time limits for such tax relief. This measure avoids creating any permanent or automatic exemptions, ensuring that relief is temporary and conditional, while providing homeowners with breathing room during recovery.
TTP:	Support	Comment: We support this “temporary” homestead exemption for fire damaged property. People who have lost everything in a fire should not be taxed on the full value of what they used to own, but own no longer. This is one of those “compelling reasons” to have tax exemptions.
TPR:	Support	This amendment would give the Legislature authority to provide a temporary property tax exemption for homesteads that are entirely destroyed by fire. The exemption would apply only to the value of the destroyed structure, not the land, and would be implemented through future legislation.
You:
(SJR 85): Increasing the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by Proposition 11 a school district of the market value of the residence homestead of a personwho is elderly or disabled.
TFR:	Neutral	SJR 85 proposes a constitutional amendment aiming to provide property tax relief by increasing the school district exemption for elderly and disabled homeowners from $10,000 to $60,000. The intent is completely understandable—some older and disabled Texans live on fixed incomes and face increasing costs of living. However, while the goal may be very well intentioned, the approach falls short of meaningful reform. Instead of lowering taxes for all Texans, this bill carves out relief for a subset of the population, pushing the cost onto other taxpayers. Taxpayers would bear more than $1.2 billion in additional costs over the next biennium alone, with no corresponding decrease in overall government size or spending. Other taxpayers, including younger families, renters, and small businesses, will pick up the tab. This is notcomprehensive tax relief; it’s tax shifting that does not deliver broad-based, structural reforms or reductions in property tax burdens, and makes future reform more difficult.

TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

TFR TEXANS FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TTP TRUE TEXAS PROJECT
TPR TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH

TTP:	Oppose	Comment: This amendment is another carveout for a specific group of people (elderly and disabled). It increases homestead exemptions for seniors and disabled persons, who already have larger exemptions than the general homestead public. It’s a very bad way to provide property tax relief because it’s picking winners and losers and shifting the tax burden to other tax payers. We strongly believe that property taxes should be eliminated and replaced with consumption tax, giving relief to all taxpayers. The amendment also carries a hefty negative fiscal impact.
TPR:	Oppose	This amendment would authorize the Legislature to raise the additional school property tax exemption for elderly and disabled homeowners from $10,000 to $60,000. The increased exemption would reduce school district taxes for qualifying individuals and would be offset by state funds to maintain district funding levels. While compassionate in intent, this measureshifts the tax burden onto younger and non-exempt Texans, expands state spending commitments without reform, and erodes tax equity. True relief should come through comprehensive reform—not piecemeal exemptions that weaken limited government and fiscal discipline
You:
(SJR 27, enabling legislation SB 293): Relating to the authority of the State Proposition 12 Commission on Judicial Conduct, the tribunal, and the Texas Supreme Courtto more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.
TFR:	Neutral	SJR 27 modifies the membership and authority of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC), the tribunal reviewing its recommendations, and the Texas Supreme Court to enhance sanctions for judicial misconduct.It restructures the SCJC to include six judges or justices appointed by the Supreme Court (with two being trial court judges) and seven citizens appointed by the governor, all subject to Senate approval, replacing the previous diverse composition. The amendment also adjusts the SCJC’s disciplinary powers, allowing private or public admonitions, warnings, reprimands, censures, or training requirements, and enables the commission to recommend removal or retirement to a review tribunal, which must decide within 90 days.
TTP:	Support	Comment: This amendment expands and restructures the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The changes seem to be positive in giving more public representation on the committee and enhancing ability to sanction judges. The change broadens citizens’ ability to have oversight into judicial ethics.
TPR:	Support	This amendment would expand and restructure the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC), increasing its membership and public representation, while enhancing its ability to issue public sanctions against judges. It also introduces new powers, including the authority to suspend judges upon indictment for certain crimes.
You:
(SJR 2, enabling legislation SB 4): Raising the exemption of residence Proposition 13 homesteads from ad valorem taxation by a school district from $100,000 to$140,000.

TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

TFR TEXANS FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TTP TRUE TEXAS PROJECT
TPR TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH

TFR:	Support	SJR 2 seeks to provide property tax relief to homeowners by raising the homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000, costing roughly $3 billion out of the $24 billion State surplus over the biennium. While not a permanent fix to property taxes, the amendment should help slow the growth of property taxes for all homeowners.
TTP:	Reluctantly Support	Comment: Proposition 13 is one of those stop-gap measures that attempts to give property tax relief, but rarely does. We strongly believe that property taxes should be eliminate and replaced with consumption tax, but we reluctantly support this amendment, giving exemption to all homesteads.
TPR:	Support	This amendment would raise the school district property tax exemption on homesteads from $100,000 to $140,000, reducing taxable home values and offering tax relief to homeowners. The state would reimburse school districts for the resulting loss in revenue.
You:
(SJR 3, enabling legislation SB 5): Creating the Dementia Prevention andResearch Institute of Texas, establishing the Dementia Prevention and Proposition 14 Research Fund to provide money for research on and prevention andtreatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders in this state.
TFR:	Oppose	SJR 3 is the constitutional amendment that creates the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund, and appropriates $3 billion from general revenue to the fund for 2026. While well intentioned, issues of research and innovation should be left to the private sector, which is the most effective at developing new treatments and technologies. By constitutionally dedicating funds, lawmakers reduce the legislature’s ability to prioritize spending based on changing needs, and ties the hands of both future taxpayers and future legislatures. Medical research is not a proper function ofthe government and this is an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars, which should be provided back to taxpayers in the form of property tax relief.
TTP:	Oppose	Comment: This amendment creates a new state-run research institute and permanently dedicates $3 billion, plus up to $300 million annually for dementia research. The spending for this amendment exists outside the state’s regular spending cap. We do not believe it is the government’s job to provide medical research, no matter how well intended the cause. The amendment also embeds the funding into the Constitution,bypassing the normal appropriation process. For both those reasons, we oppose this amendment.

TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

TFR TEXANS FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TTP TRUE TEXAS PROJECT
TPR TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH

TPR:	Oppose	This amendment would create a new state-run medical research institute and permanently dedicate $3 billion from general revenue, plus up to $300 million annually, for research and infrastructure related to dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases. The fund would exist outside the state’s regular spending cap. While well-intentioned, this amendment expands the scope and permanence of government by embedding medical research funding into the Constitution. It bypasses the appropriations process, undermines limited government, and risks crowding out private innovation in healthcare without clear fiscal safeguards or performance accountability
You:
Proposition 15 (SJR 34): Parents are the primary decision makers for their children.
TFR:	Support	SJR 34 enshrines the fundamental right of parents to raise their children without unnecessary government interference. It constitutionally guarantees that decisions about a child’s upbringing—such as education, healthcare, and values—rest with parents, not bureaucrats or unelected judges. This amendment reinforces the principle that parents, not government agencies, are best suited to make choices for their children.It restrains the growth of state power and keeps decision-making closer to the home. It also reduces the risk of taxpayer-funded legal conflicts over parental rights by clarifying legal boundaries in advance. Codifying this protection into the Texas Constitution helps secure individual liberty, family autonomy, and taxpayer interests alike.
TTP:	Oppose	Comment: Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the State Constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect. In our opinion, if we put things like this into the Constitution, it equates toacknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.
TPR:	Support	This amendment would enshrine in the Texas Constitution the inherent right of parents to care for and make decisions about their children’s upbringing. It would restrict state or local government interference unless justified by a compelling government interest using the least restrictive means
You:
Proposition 16 (SJR 37): Voters must be United States citizens.
TFR:	Support	SJR 37 proposes a constitutional amendment to ensure that only United States citizens can vote in any election held in Texas. While current law requires voter citizenship, this amendment would prevent future local policies from expanding voting rights to non-citizens. It also safeguards taxpayer-funded governance by ensuring that only those fully vested in the nations interests—its citizens—can shape public policy. Enshrining this principle in the Constitution provides long-term security and reduces the risk of politically motivated changes in election law.
TTP:	Support	Comment: This amendment prevents cities and other political subdivisions from allowing non- citizens to vote (like we’ve seen in San Francisco, and other cities). We believe that only Texas citizens (and therefore US citizens) should vote in Texas elections, and we support this amendment to ensure that is the case for all Texans.

TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

TFR TEXANS FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TTP TRUE TEXAS PROJECT
TPR TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH

TPR:	Support	This amendment would explicitly state in the Texas Constitution that only U.S. citizens may vote in Texas elections. While current law already limits voting to citizens, this measure codifies that restriction in the Constitution to prevent future legal or policy changes allowing non-citizen voting.
You:
(HJR 34, enabling legislation HB 247): Providing an exemption from ad valoremtaxation of the amount of the market value of real property located in a county Proposition 17 that borders the United Mexican States that arises from the installation or construction on the property of border security infrastructure and relatedimprovements.
TFR:	Support	HJR 34 protects borderland property owners from being unfairly taxed when they allow the state or federal government to place security infrastructure on their land. Without this amendment, improvements like fencing or surveillance towers could raise a property’s appraised value, causing higher property tax bills for landowners who are simply helping with public safety. The bill respects private property rights by ensuring the government doesn’t punish these property owners with increased taxes. It promotes taxpayer fairness and avoids creating disincentives for cooperating with law enforcement. By shielding these owners from unintended financial burdens, the resolution aligns with principles of limited, fair, and respectful governance, and border security efforts.
TTP:	Support	Comment: We opposed this legislation when it was first introduced to the House committee, due to a misunderstanding of the language. Upon further inspection, we changed position on the bill. It is NOT an exemption on the taxes owed, but only an exemption on the appraisal of any value added to the property that results from additional border security infrastructure. If a landowner invests money in strengthening our border, he should not be punished for it with additional taxes. This amendment would exclude the value of border security improvements from any increases in appraisal value
TPR:	Support	This amendment would allow the Legislature to exempt from property taxation any increase in value to land in Texas border counties that results from the addition of border security infrastructure. It is a narrowly tailored measure meant to avoid penalizing landowners for voluntary security- related improvements.
You:

TFR https://texastaxpayers.com/the-2025-proposed-amendments-to-the-texas-constitution/

TTP https://truetexasproject.com/constitutional-amendments-review-recommendations/

TPRhttps://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025-Constitutional- Amendments-Explained-Ballot-Guide-Vote-Recommendations.pdf