Estimated Time to Read: 22 minutes
Much of the attention during the 89th Texas Legislative Session was focused on big-ticket issues like school choice, property taxes, border security, and the state budget. But plenty of other legislation made its way through the process, some quietly, some with controversy, that didn’t quite fit into those policy buckets.
This final post in our eight-part series highlights the outliers. Some of these measures passed with little fanfare, while others stirred debate but never made it across the finish line. All of them, however, reveal something about the policy priorities and political undercurrents shaping Texas today.
Bills That Made It
Though overshadowed by more high-profile debates, several lesser-known bills passed this session with meaningful implications. These include measures affecting the Texas Lottery, eviction procedures, zoning regulations, and transparency in school bond financing. Lawmakers also took steps to expand the Compassionate Use Program, restrict SNAP purchases, create a state-managed cryptocurrency reserve, and streamline mobile food vendor licensing. While they varied in scope and controversy, each of these bills contributes to the broader policy landscape shaping Texas.
Overhaul of Texas Lottery Governance – Senate Bill 3070 (SB 3070)
Senate Bill 3070, authored by State Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood), dissolves the Texas Lottery Commission and transfers oversight of both the state lottery and charitable bingo programs to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. The bill introduces new restrictions on lottery operations, including a ban on online and mobile purchases, limits on bulk buying, vending machine caps, and stricter age verification. It also mandates annual audits, strengthens document retention rules, and creates two advisory committees to assist with lottery and bingo regulation.
Notably, SB 3070 does not eliminate the Texas Lottery itself, despite significant criticism of the program earlier in the session. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick publicly called for its end, and some lawmakers and advocates hoped this session would mark a turning point. Instead, the bill preserves the lottery and offers only a limited-scope Sunset review in 2027. That provision allows the Legislature to revisit the issue in the future, but does not guarantee repeal. For critics of state-sponsored gambling, this is seen as a missed opportunity that merely postpones the debate rather than resolving it.
In transferring oversight to TDLR, perhaps a more competent and efficient agency, the bill may inadvertently strengthen the lottery’s long-term viability. While improved oversight and tighter controls may reduce abuses, they also risk making the lottery more defensible politically and more embedded institutionally. SB 3070 does not address the ethical concern of the state profiting from gambling, nor does it offer a plan to move away from lottery revenues, which are often tied to education funding.
Ultimately, the bill improves the structure around a system many believe should not exist in the first place. It tightens some regulatory practices but leaves the core problem intact: a state-run gambling monopoly that disproportionately targets low-income Texans under the guise of public benefit. For that reason, critics argue the bill falls short of a true reform and instead reinforces a model incompatible with limited government and principled public finance.
Eviction Reform and Anti-Squatting Measures – Senate Bill 38 (SB 38)
Senate Bill 38, authored by State Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), delivers a comprehensive overhaul of Texas’s eviction framework, streamlining justice court procedures and reinforcing property rights. It addresses rising concerns over unauthorized occupancy, commonly referred to as squatting, that have placed significant burdens on property owners. The bill provides new legal clarity on how and where eviction suits must be filed, particularly by affirming the exclusive jurisdiction of justice courts over possession issues and barring them from adjudicating title disputes or accepting counterclaims.
Key provisions include the creation of a summary judgment process for uncontested cases, expedited writ execution timelines, and clarified rules around tenant appeals. Tenants who appeal judgments must continue paying rent into the court registry, with swift possession remedies available if they fail to do so. The bill also allows off-duty peace officers to serve writs when delays arise and requires proper documentation of all judgments and notices.
Importantly, SB 38 maintains procedural fairness while improving enforcement tools for property owners. The bill preserves notice rights, due process protections, and judicial safeguards, while removing unnecessary procedural hurdles that courts or local rules have previously created. It also ensures that only the Legislature, not individual judges or local jurisdictions, can change eviction law, reinforcing the principle of limited government.
Housing Affordability and Zoning Limits – Senate Bill 15 (SB 15)
Senate Bill 15, also authored by Bettencourt, tackles Texas’s growing housing affordability crisis by limiting certain municipal zoning restrictions that block smaller, more affordable housing options. It applies to large cities in high-growth counties and focuses on undeveloped tracts of land zoned for single-family housing. Specifically, the bill prohibits cities from requiring minimum lot sizes over 3,000 square feet or enforcing design rules that make it harder to build smaller homes.
Supporters view the bill as a constitutionally grounded and economically necessary response to exclusionary zoning practices. While critics raised concerns about local control, SB 15 rests on well-established principles of state preemption. The Texas Constitution gives the Legislature final authority over municipal powers, particularly when local rules conflict with broader public needs such as affordable housing.
The bill also preserves key protections for local and private interests. It does not override homeowners’ association rules or private deed restrictions, and cities may still enforce regulations related to flood mitigation, aquifer protection, and drainage. These carve-outs make clear that SB 15 is not an attack on community standards but rather a focused check on outdated regulations that constrain housing supply.
By removing barriers to smaller lot development, the bill empowers individuals, especially first-time buyers, working families, and lower-income Texans, to access more affordable housing near jobs and services. It also supports infill development, which reduces infrastructure costs, traffic congestion, and water usage. Cities like Bastrop have demonstrated that smaller lots can increase tax revenue per acre, further debunking claims that affordability comes at a fiscal cost.
The final version of the bill reflects a thoughtful compromise. While the original Senate version proposed broader deregulation and waived governmental immunity, the adopted version narrowed its scope, removed damage provisions, and focused on legal remedies like declaratory and injunctive relief. This balance strengthens accountability while limiting legal exposure for cities.
Prohibition on “Red Flag Law” Enforcement – Senate Bill 1362 (SB 1362)
Senate Bill 1362, authored by State Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), prohibits any Texas agency, court, or local government from recognizing, serving, or enforcing Extreme Risk Protective Orders (ERPOs), unless explicitly authorized by Texas law. Often referred to as red flag laws, ERPOs allow courts in other jurisdictions to temporarily remove firearms from individuals based on perceived threats rather than criminal convictions. SB 1362 ensures such orders cannot be enforced in Texas and makes it a state jail felony for any official to attempt enforcement outside of lawful authority.
The bill also blocks Texas from accepting federal funds intended to support ERPO implementation. By doing so, lawmakers sought to prevent federal grants from becoming a backdoor method for advancing red flag-style enforcement within the state. The legislation creates a new chapter in the Code of Criminal Procedure that explicitly defines and rejects firearm-restrictive orders not tied to criminal proceedings.
Supporters framed SB 1362 as a necessary safeguard of Second Amendment rights and due process. They pointed to the risk of firearm confiscation without a conviction or formal charge, which they argue undermines both private property rights and basic constitutional protections. Critics, including some House Democrats, contended that the bill removes a potential tool for preventing suicides and mass shootings, but their proposed amendments were largely defeated.
Though Texas does not currently authorize ERPOs, this bill serves as a preemptive strike against future efforts, legislative, judicial, or federal, to implement them. It reflects a clear rejection of red flag laws as incompatible with Texas values and constitutional norms.
Medical Cannabis Expansion – House Bill 46 (HB 46)
House Bill 46, authored by State Rep. Ken King (R-Canadian), was framed as an expansion of Texas’s Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), but the legislation ultimately doubles down on the state’s centralized, highly restrictive approach to medical cannabis. The bill increases the number of dispensary licenses from three to fifteen and adds several qualifying conditions, including chronic pain, Crohn’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and terminal illness. It also allows for inhaled vapor cannabis delivery and authorizes dispensaries to open satellite storage and distribution sites, though only with DPS approval and within strict geographic limits.
Supporters of the bill claimed it would increase patient access, but in practice, HB 46 reinforces the same command-and-control model that has long defined Texas’s cannabis policy. Rather than moving toward decentralization or market competition, the bill grants expanded authority to state agencies like the Department of Public Safety and the Department of State Health Services. These agencies now hold broad rulemaking power over licensing, qualifying conditions, facility approval, and registry access, further entrenching bureaucratic control over what should be personal medical decisions.
The bill also intensifies licensing requirements, mandating registration and background checks for not just employees but also directors, owners, and managers of licensed organizations. These additional layers of compliance are likely to benefit existing operators while raising barriers to market entry for new or independent providers. While the bill may generate modest state revenue from expanded licensing, those gains come from increased regulatory costs, not real market growth or innovation.
Most concerning, HB 46 leaves intact the restrictive gatekeeping system that limits patient and provider autonomy. Access to medical cannabis in Texas remains tightly confined to a list of state-approved conditions and is only available through a small number of highly regulated providers. Patients cannot simply consult their physician and make treatment decisions. Instead, they must navigate a state-controlled process that limits choice and imposes delays. The bill expands this model rather than rethinking it.
Although HB 46 introduces some nominal improvements, like new eligible conditions and geographical distribution, the broader effect is to strengthen the existing regulatory framework and solidify government control over medical cannabis.
State-Run Bitcoin Reserve – Senate Bill 21 (SB 21)
Senate Bill 21, authored by State Sen. Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown), creates the Texas Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, a new state-managed fund administered by the Comptroller of Public Accounts. The bill allows Texas to purchase, hold, and manage Bitcoin and other high-market-cap cryptocurrencies using legislative appropriations, donations, and investment proceeds. Supporters framed the bill as a forward-looking effort to diversify state assets, hedge against inflation, and position Texas as a leader in digital finance.
The bill restricts eligible investments to cryptocurrencies with an average market capitalization of at least $500 billion over the past 12 months, effectively limiting the reserve to Bitcoin and possibly Ethereum. The Comptroller may also engage in staking, lending, and the use of derivatives, though legal ownership must remain with the state. The bill establishes a five-member advisory committee and requires biennial reports on holdings and activities.
While the final version of SB 21 includes some improvements in transparency and structure, significant concerns remain. Critics argue the bill introduces unnecessary financial risk by exposing taxpayer funds to the volatility of digital assets. Unlike traditional state investments, Bitcoin lacks price stability, a track record of long-term performance, and a clear regulatory footing. Without strong oversight, conservative investment constraints, or a defined exit strategy, the state could find itself holding losses indefinitely.
The bill also represents a major shift in the state’s role, from encouraging private-sector innovation to directly intervening in speculative markets. By inserting Texas into the cryptocurrency space as an investor rather than a deregulator, SB 21 conflicts with the principles of limited government and free enterprise. It expands the Comptroller’s discretion and establishes a framework for state-managed digital asset trading that goes far beyond passive investment.
In the absence of stronger guardrails, such as quarterly audits, caps on exposure, or clear liquidation rules, the bill risks turning the state into a participant in a volatile market that it has little capacity to manage prudently. While it may position Texas at the forefront of digital asset policy, it does so at a potentially high cost to taxpayers and fiscal stability.
SNAP Purchase Restrictions – Senate Bill 379 (SB 379)
Senate Bill 379, authored by State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), prohibits the use of SNAP benefits to purchase sweetened drinks and candy, including energy drinks and carbonated beverages. Under the bill, a “sweetened drink” is defined as a nonalcoholic beverage containing five or more grams of added sugar or any amount of artificial sweeteners, with exemptions for milk-based drinks and those made up of more than 50 percent fruit or vegetable juice. Candy that is typically sold for immediate consumption is also included in the ban.
Presented as a public health measure, the bill aims to improve dietary outcomes for low-income Texans while reducing long-term healthcare costs. Supporters argue that taxpayer-funded benefits should be used to promote healthier food choices, not subsidize products linked to obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related illnesses. By removing high-calorie, low-nutrient foods from eligibility, the bill aligns the SNAP program with the state’s broader nutritional and fiscal goals.
The legislation also makes a strong fiscal case. Though it carries a one-time implementation cost of just over $1.5 million in 2026, supporters note that healthier eating among SNAP recipients could lead to reduced Medicaid spending on chronic conditions. Fewer emergency room visits and long-term health complications may result in significant savings for taxpayers over time.
Earlier versions of the bill sought broader restrictions on snack foods like chips and cookies, but those provisions were ultimately removed to focus on the most clearly non-nutritive items and to increase the bill’s chances of federal approval. Implementation is still contingent on a federal waiver, as SNAP is a federally regulated program.
School Bond Transparency – Senate Bill 843 (SB 843)
Senate Bill 843, authored by State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), requires the Texas Education Agency to create and maintain a centralized public database that tracks school district and charter school bonds, related tax rates, and capital projects. The goal is to close a major information gap by making it easier for taxpayers, parents, and policymakers to access clear, organized data on how school districts plan and spend public funds.
The database must include details such as ballot language, election results, project descriptions, bond amounts, and any associated tax increases. It also tracks maintenance tax rates and outcomes of tax ratification elections. Critically, the platform will include tools for disaggregated reporting and public input, allowing users to submit corrections or request updates. TEA is authorized to contract with third-party vendors to build and maintain the system, while school districts are required to supply the data they already generate.
Though the bill carries a projected $3 million cost over the next biennium and an annual maintenance cost of $1.5 million thereafter, the investment is widely viewed as modest compared to the value it brings in public oversight. It enhances voter education, supports local accountability, and helps ensure bond-funded projects are tracked beyond the initial ballot language. The commissioner of education is granted rulemaking authority to guide the database’s implementation, allowing for future refinements and flexibility in its design.
SB 843 promotes transparency without expanding government power. It does not regulate local financial decisions but ensures they are visible and accessible to the public. By giving taxpayers the tools to track financial decisions that impact property taxes and community investments, the bill strengthens local accountability and supports more informed participation in school bond elections.
Statewide Licensing Framework for Mobile Food Vendors – House Bill 2844 (HB 2844)
House Bill 2844, authored by State Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R-Odessa), also known as the Mobile Food Vendor Regulatory Consistency Act, creates a uniform, statewide licensing system for mobile food vendors. Starting July 1, 2026, vendors will be able to operate across Texas with a single license issued by the Department of State Health Services (DSHS), replacing the inconsistent and often burdensome patchwork of local permitting rules. Once licensed, vendors are free to operate statewide, as long as they comply with relevant health and safety standards. Local governments may no longer require duplicative permits but retain authority over matters like noise, operating hours, and park access.
The bill classifies vendors into three risk-based categories, ranging from prepackaged food sellers to full-service cooking operations, and ties inspection frequency and licensing fees to those classifications. DSHS may coordinate with local governments to conduct inspections and enforce standards. Vendors must display their licenses, post inspection certificates, and provide notice of where they operate. A centralized vendor database and published operator guide are also required, alongside a standardized appeals and enforcement process.
Importantly, HB 2844 does not impose additional regulation. Instead, it consolidates and simplifies existing rules, making compliance easier and less expensive. For mobile food entrepreneurs, especially those from low-income backgrounds, this means fewer barriers to entry and less red tape to navigate. Small food businesses generating under $1.5 million annually are exempt from local permitting if they already hold a DSHS-issued license, further lowering the regulatory burden.
Bills That Did Not Make It
Other proposals failed to cross the legislative finish line—some due to vetoes, others due to political opposition or procedural delays. These included efforts to more strictly regulate taxpayer-funded lobbying, impose sweeping bans on hemp-derived cannabinoids, and prohibit guaranteed income programs at the local level. Though unsuccessful, each proposal signaled an ideological trend or policy priority that is likely to resurface in future sessions.
Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Restrictions – Senate Bill 19 (SB 19)
Senate Bill 19, authored by State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), sought to restrict the ability of political subdivisions, such as cities, counties, and special districts, to use public funds for lobbying purposes. The bill prohibits the direct hiring of registered lobbyists and bars payments to nonprofit associations that both primarily represent political subdivisions and contract with registered lobbyists.
However, key exceptions added in via a successful amendment by State Sen. Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville) significantly weakened the bill’s impact. Local elected officials and employees remain free to advocate for or against legislation in their official capacity, as long as their activity does not meet the threshold for lobbyist registration. Associations may also continue offering legislative tracking, alerts, and related services through full-time internal staff who avoid formal registration under Chapter 305 of the Government Code.
The bill also narrowed its original enforcement mechanism. While taxpayers were initially empowered to sue for violations and recover attorney’s fees, the final version scaled this back. It also does not effectively block many forms of indirect lobbying.
Despite amending the Government Code and Local Government Code to codify these limited restrictions, the final version of the bill leaves the lobbying infrastructure of entities like the Texas Municipal League and Texas Association of Counties largely intact. Though the bill passed the Texas Senate, it was never considered by the House State Affairs Committee.
Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Ban – Senate Bill 3 (SB 3)
Senate Bill 3, authored by State Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), proposed a sweeping overhaul of Texas’s hemp regulations by banning most consumable hemp-derived cannabinoids, including delta-8, delta-10, and other compounds currently legal under federal law, and transferring regulatory authority from the Department of State Health Services to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. While supporters framed the bill as a measure to protect minors and address product safety, it sought to impose broad prohibitions, high compliance costs, and new criminal penalties that critics say go far beyond responsible regulation.
The bill restricts the market to only cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabigerol (CBG), regardless of the safety profile or federal legality of other cannabinoids. It would have created burdensome licensing fees of $10,000 per manufacturing location and $20,000 annually per retail site, as well as $500-per-product registration fees. Common practices such as mail-order sales and local delivery would be banned, and products could no longer resemble candy, fruit, or other commercially appealing designs. Violations could result in felony charges, with severe consequences for businesses, employees, and consumers.
Supporters argue the bill is necessary to protect children and public health, but opponents point out that it targets adult-use products with little evidence of widespread harm and without offering narrowly tailored alternatives. Instead of strengthening age restrictions, improving labeling, or requiring secure packaging, the bill opted for a near-total prohibition on a growing segment of Texas’s hemp economy. Small businesses, particularly in rural areas, face shutdowns or steep losses, with job cuts expected across the supply chain.
The economic impact is stark. The Legislative Budget Board projects a $37 million loss in General Revenue by 2027, largely due to decreased sales and tax revenue from shuttered businesses. While the bill authorizes TABC to recover administrative costs through new fees, those funds won’t offset the broader contraction in private economic activity. Entrepreneurs who built businesses based on existing legal frameworks could see their investments erased overnight.
Beyond economics, the bill sets a concerning precedent for regulatory overreach. It shifts oversight from a health-based agency to a law-enforcement-centric regulator, expands criminal liability for nonviolent conduct, and grants the state broad new powers to inspect, shut down, or penalize businesses. For those who value limited government and free enterprise, SB 3 marks a significant step backward.
Although Governor Abbott ultimately vetoed the bill, citing constitutional and legal concerns, its passage through both chambers and its designation for a future special session suggest the issue is far from settled. SB 3 may return with revised language, but the core debate, whether to regulate or prohibit a lawful product category, will likely remain.
Ban on Guaranteed Income Programs – Senate Bill 2010 (SB 2010)
Senate Bill 2010, authored by State Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), aimed to prohibit local governments from establishing or operating guaranteed income programs unless explicitly authorized by federal law. These programs, often used in pilot initiatives, provide direct cash payments or similar benefits to individuals without conditions tied to employment, training, or service.
The bill defined such programs broadly and barred the use of any state or local public funds to finance or administer them, even if federal approval were obtained. An exception was carved out for short-term, nonrenewable programs that require work, job-seeking, or participation in training programs as a condition of aid, preserving workforce development models while blocking universal basic income-style efforts.
To accommodate existing programs, SB 2010 included a transition period, allowing any such initiatives currently underway to continue through January 1, 2026, or until they naturally expire. Although it imposed no direct cost to the state, the bill would have required localities to wind down or restructure pilot programs. Ultimately, the legislation failed to pass, leaving Texas without a statutory prohibition on guaranteed income programs at the local level.
Political Takeaways/Trends
Taken together, these bills reveal a Legislature increasingly willing to assert its dominance over local governments, often through broad preemption measures that limit local experimentation or judicial interpretation. Whether it was banning red flag laws before they could take root, restricting municipalities from establishing guaranteed income programs, or centralizing oversight of school bond transparency and medical cannabis operations, lawmakers showed little hesitation in curbing local discretion. This trend reflects a growing belief among state leadership that cities and counties are out of step with the policy preferences of the broader electorate and that preemptive legislation is necessary to rein them in.
Meanwhile, some of the session’s most structurally significant legislation, like the creation of a state-managed Bitcoin reserve, points to a philosophical shift in how Texas approaches governance. SB 21 marked a departure from the state’s traditional hands-off posture toward markets and instead placed the government in the role of direct investor in a volatile asset class. While supporters touted it as a hedge against inflation and a move toward financial innovation, it also invited criticism for expanding bureaucracy, exposing taxpayers to risk, and contradicting free-market principles long held by many of the bill’s backers.
Even as the Senate advanced bold, ideological legislation across a variety of fronts, the Texas House once again served as the place where popular reforms quietly died. The failure of SB 19 to even receive a hearing, despite pledges from key lawmakers and near-universal support among Republican voters, exemplifies the pattern. The House’s reluctance to confront the influence of taxpayer-funded lobbying associations continues to undercut trust in the process and reinforce the perception that entrenched interests wield more power than constituents.
Overall, these under-the-radar bills, whether passed or defeated, tell the story of a Legislature grappling with questions that don’t always command headlines but often reveal the deeper ideological current shaping Texas law: a tension between liberty and control, between state authority and local autonomy, and between market dynamism and government ambition.
Conclusion
The 89th Legislature produced no shortage of headline-grabbing policies, but a closer look reveals just as much activity happening beneath the surface. From niche reforms to ambitious overhauls that never made it across the finish line, these under-the-radar bills reflect the evolving ideological battleground in Texas politics, one where questions of local control, fiscal responsibility, and the proper role of government remain front and center.
As the state prepares for special sessions and begins pre-filing for the 90th Legislature, Texans would do well to keep watching, not just the big fights, but the quiet ones, too.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
