Bill Filing Opens for the 90th Texas Legislature

Estimated Time to Read: 17 minutes

The road to the 90th Texas Legislative Session officially began on Monday, as lawmakers started filing legislation ahead January, when they officially convene. With the regular bill filing deadline set for March 12, legislators have roughly four months to introduce proposals that could reshape state policy on taxation, healthcare, immigration, education, economic regulation, and individual liberty, among so many other policy challenges facing the state.

The opening day offered an early glimpse of the debates awaiting lawmakers in Austin. Proposals ranged from expanding Medicaid eligibility and raising the state minimum wage to revisiting immigration enforcement requirements, firearm regulations, and property tax limitations.

The filings also arrive amid a significant shift in Texas's political landscape. Following the November 3 elections, Democrats will hold the governor's office, the lieutenant governor's office, and a majority in the Texas House, while Republicans retain their majority in the Texas Senate. That arrangement, including a Democratic lieutenant governor presiding over a Republican Senate, raises new questions about which proposals can build enough support to advance.

Filing a bill is only the beginning. Thousands more proposals will be introduced before the March deadline, and many will never receive a committee hearing, much less reach the governor's desk. For Texans, the more consequential question is not simply what lawmakers are proposing, but how those proposals would affect the size and scope of government, the state's fiscal trajectory, economic opportunity, and individual liberty.

By the Numbers: Opening Day of Prefiling

By the end of opening day, lawmakers had filed 1,262 bills and resolutions, 972 in the House and 290 in the Senate. More than 1,000 of them were in by roughly noon.

Our own review of those filings found that roughly 1,175 were bills and nearly 60 were joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments for voters to decide. The remaining two dozen or so were concurrent and simple resolutions, most of them commemorative.

That makes November 9 the second-busiest opening day of prefiling on record. Only the 89th Legislature's opening day in November 2024 was busier, with 1,511 bills and resolutions, according to the Legislative Reference Library of Texas, about one-sixth more than this year. Opening day ahead of the 88th Legislature in 2022 produced about 920 bills, and opening day ahead of the 87th in 2020 produced 541 bills and joint resolutions. First-day volume has more than doubled in six years.

A handful of offices account for a large share of the total. In the House, State Rep. Suleman Lalani (D-Sugar Land) filed about 70 measures, State Rep. John Bucy III (D-Austin) about 60, and State Reps. Mary González (D-San Elizario) and Brian Harrison (R-Midlothian) filed about 45 each. In the Senate, State Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) filed nearly 70 and State Sen. José Menéndez (D-San Antonio) more than 50, together roughly four in ten of all Senate filings.

The subjects track the issues discussed below. Judging by their captions, about 50 opening-day measures touch property taxation or appraisal, roughly 30 address firearms or weapons, and about 20 deal with data centers and large electricity loads. Another 13 would expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including a proposed constitutional amendment in each chamber.

Those numbers should be read in context. During the 89th Regular Session, lawmakers filed more than 8,700 bills and about 2,700 resolutions. Just under 1,200 bills passed both chambers and were sent to the governor, or roughly one in seven. Volume signals priorities; it does not predict outcomes.

Medicaid Expansion Bills Revive a Familiar Debate

Among the first bills filed were proposals to expand Medicaid eligibility under the federal ACA.

House Bill 101 (HB 101), filed by Rep. Bucy, would require Texas to provide Medicaid coverage to individuals eligible for federal matching funds under the ACA. The proposal would take effect January 1, 2028, contingent on voter approval of a constitutional amendment proposed in House Joint Resolution 21 (HJR 21), also by Bucy. In all, 13 opening-day measures would expand Medicaid eligibility, including Senate Bill 31 (SB 31) and Senate Joint Resolution 6 (SJR 6) by Sen. Zaffirini, reviving a debate that has persisted in Texas for more than a decade.

Supporters contend that expansion would increase access to care for uninsured Texans, particularly low-income adults who do not qualify for traditional Medicaid. Under the ACA framework, the federal government generally covers 90 percent of qualifying expansion costs, with participating states responsible for the remaining 10 percent.

Opponents point to the long-term fiscal obligations that come with expanded eligibility, including enrollment growth, administrative costs, and exposure to future changes in federal funding.

What Medicaid Expansion Would Mean for Texas Taxpayers

The fiscal implications extend well beyond the availability of federal matching funds. Texas would take on new spending obligations that grow with enrollment and healthcare costs, and federal participation does not eliminate the underlying cost of the program, since federal spending is ultimately financed through taxation and borrowing.

The federal landscape has also shifted. Under HR 1, the temporary bonus in federal matching funds once offered to newly expanding states is no longer available, and work requirements for expansion enrollees are scheduled to take effect in 2027. A state expanding now would assume the program's obligations without the incentives earlier adopters received.

The debate raises a broader question: whether expanding government-administered coverage is the most effective way to improve healthcare affordability and access. Approaches built on price transparency, competition, regulatory reform, and flexibility in care delivery address the underlying cost of care rather than who pays for it. The distinction between expanding insurance coverage and reducing what healthcare actually costs will matter as the debate develops.

Immigration Bills Target Mandatory Local Participation in 287(g)

Immigration enforcement emerged as another early issue, with Democratic lawmakers filing proposals to reverse requirements enacted last session.

House Bill 123 (HB 123), filed by State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D-San Antonio), and Senate Bill 99 (SB 99), filed by Sen. Menéndez, would repeal provisions requiring certain county sheriffs to participate in the federal 287(g) program. Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), enacted during the 89th Legislature (2025), required sheriffs in counties with populations of at least 100,000 to request participation in the program, which allows designated local officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions under federal supervision.

Supporters of repeal argue that local agencies should retain discretion over their involvement in federal enforcement and raise concerns about administrative burdens and the use of local policing resources. Supporters of current law contend that local-federal cooperation is necessary to enforce immigration law consistently and avoid gaps between jurisdictions.

Federalism, Public Safety, and Local Authority

The 287(g) debate presents competing federalism questions. Immigration enforcement is principally a federal responsibility, yet state policymakers have increasingly sought to define the role local authorities play in assisting federal agencies.

Mandating participation in a federal program raises questions about how far state mandates on counties should reach. Removing the mandate, on the other hand, could produce uneven cooperation across Texas jurisdictions. Whether mandatory participation has improved enforcement outcomes, and at what financial and administrative cost to counties, is the evidence lawmakers should demand before deciding. The goal should be a coherent approach with clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

Minimum Wage Proposal Would Set a $15 Statewide Floor

House Bill 110 (HB 110), filed by State Rep. Ana-Maria Rodriguez Ramos (D-Richardson), would raise the Texas minimum wage to $15 per hour beginning September 1, 2027.

Texas currently follows the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, unchanged since 2009. The proposal would more than double the existing floor.

Supporters argue the increase would help low-wage workers keep pace with living costs. Opponents counter that mandated wage increases impose high costs on employers, particularly small businesses and labor-intensive industries with narrow margins.

What a $15 Mandate Would Mean for Texas Businesses and Workers

Wages reflect productivity, experience, competition, and local conditions. A single statewide mandate would apply identically in Midland, McAllen, and Austin, regardless of differences in living costs or labor markets.

For some employers, higher mandated labor costs would mean higher prices, fewer hours, slower hiring, or faster automation. Others, especially where wages already approach $15, might absorb the change. The effects would not be uniform, and the workers most exposed are those seeking their first job or with limited experience.

The question is whether a government mandate expands opportunity more effectively than policies that encourage investment, competition, workforce development, and voluntary wage growth.

Firearm Bills Raise Second Amendment Questions

House Bill 218 (HB 218), filed by State Rep. Ann Johnson (D-Houston), would repeal the 2025 law prohibiting extreme risk protective orders, commonly called red flag laws, and establish a process allowing courts to order the temporary surrender of firearms.

Under the proposal, family members, household members, and law enforcement officers could petition a court to restrict a person's access to firearms based on allegations of immediate danger. Temporary orders could be issued without advance notice or a hearing involving the firearm owner, with judicial proceedings to follow.

House Bill 173 (HB 173), filed by State Rep. Joe Moody (D-El Paso), would restrict transfers of certain semiautomatic rifles to individuals younger than 21. In the Senate, Senate Bill 80 (SB 80) by Sen. Zaffirini would prohibit certain transfers, purchases, and possession of so-called assault weapons.

Supporters argue these measures can prevent violence where credible threats exist. Opponents contend they infringe constitutional protections, particularly where rights are restricted before a person can contest the allegations.

Second Amendment Rights and Constitutional Due Process

Any framework allowing government to restrict firearm possession must be measured against the Second Amendment and due process protections. Ex parte orders issued without notice deserve particular scrutiny.

The details carry the weight here: the evidentiary standard required to obtain an order, how long a restriction lasts, what judicial review is available, and what remedy exists when allegations prove unfounded. The proposals affecting adults ages 18 to 20 raise separate constitutional questions about the scope of permissible restrictions on transfers.

Whatever approach advances, the burden rests on the government to show that a restriction is constitutionally justified and paired with adequate procedural protections.

Property Tax Bills Weigh Relief Against Reform

Property taxes are again positioned to dominate the fiscal conversation. Early proposals include changes to appraisal limitations, restrictions on tax increases, and changes to local governments' authority to impose or collect certain taxes. Proposals range from outright abolition, in House Bill 731 (HB 731) by Rep. Harrison and a proposed constitutional amendment by State Rep. Brent Money (R-Greenville), whose House Bill 144 (HB 144) would study replacement revenue, to lower caps on appraisal growth in House Bill 457 (HB 457) by State Rep. Carl Tepper (R-Lubbock), House Bill 563 (HB 563) by State Rep. Jared Patterson (R-Frisco), and Senate Bill 298 (SB 298) by State Sen. Pete Flores (R-Pleasanton). Harrison's House Bill 687 (HB 687) would change the vote required to approve a tax rate above the voter-approval rate.

Texas lawmakers have repeatedly pursued relief through larger exemptions, school district rate compression, and limits on appraisal growth. Despite those efforts, property taxes remain a significant recurring cost for homeowners and businesses, driven by local spending decisions and rising valuations.

Relief, Elimination, and Fiscal Restraint

The key distinction is between temporary relief and structural reform. Exemptions and rate reductions lower liabilities for qualifying taxpayers, but they do not reduce the underlying cost of government or prevent future increases. Appraisal caps likewise constrain taxable value growth without touching the spending decisions of local taxing units.

More fundamental reform requires examining the relationship between expenditures, revenue requirements, and how local services are financed. Proposals to eliminate or substantially reduce property taxes must account for replacement revenue, spending reductions, and how the tax burden would shift among households and businesses. Without corresponding spending restraint, changing the source of taxation leaves the cost of government largely where it is.

As the session approaches, whether lawmakers pair tax relief with spending limits will be the clearest measure of how serious the proposals are.

Data Center Bills Raise Energy and Water Questions

The rapid expansion of data centers across Texas is generating a bipartisan set of proposals. Early filings include new reporting requirements on water consumption, changes to local government authority, and reconsideration of tax incentives available to qualifying projects. Among them, House Bill 364 (HB 364) by Rep. González would increase penalties for large water consumers that fail to complete water-usage surveys. In the Senate, Sen. Zaffirini filed a five-bill package, Senate Bills 32 through 36, that would require a Public Utility Commission (PUC) permit to build a large computational load site, address cost recovery for serving those sites, expand county authority over large electricity users, share large-load data with the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), and revisit data centers' eligibility for state and local incentives.

The clearest sign of bipartisan interest is a push to repeal the state's sales and use tax exemptions for data centers. Senate Bill 293 (SB 293) by State Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston), who chaired the Senate Committee on Finance last session, would repeal the exemptions for property used in qualifying data centers and large data center projects. Its joint authors include State Sen. Carol Alvarado (D-Houston) along with Republican State Sens. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) and Donna Campbell (R-Bulverde). In the House, identical bills were filed by Reps. Martinez Fischer, Carrie Isaac (R-Dripping Springs), and Cody Vasut (R-Angleton) as House Bills 167, 408, and 681. Two more House Democrats filed related repeal bills, including House Bill 851 (HB 851) by State Rep. Vincent Perez (D-El Paso), which would also make data centers ineligible for enterprise project tax refunds.

The issue reflects concern over electricity demand, water availability, infrastructure costs, and the relationship between large industrial projects and surrounding communities. Data centers also represent a substantial category of private investment tied to growing demand for computing capacity.

Data Center Regulation and Corporate Welfare

The data center debate contains several distinct questions that should not be treated as one.

The first is infrastructure cost. Large electricity consumers can drive substantial new generation, transmission, and distribution needs, and regulatory arrangements should assign those costs to the entities that create them rather than to other ratepayers.

The second is water and property rights. Communities have a legitimate interest in understanding how development affects shared resources, while property owners retain the right to lawful use of their land.

The third is government incentives. Abatements, exemptions, and other preferential arrangements shift fiscal burdens and advantage particular businesses over competitors and taxpayers. The coalition behind SB 293 suggests this may be the question with the broadest agreement.

Each question warrants its own answer. The test is whether Texas responds with predictable, generally applicable rules that address demonstrable costs, or with industry-specific interventions that restrict otherwise lawful private development.

Education Bills Revisit School Choice and Funding

Education will again feature prominently. Early filings address school finance, education savings accounts, accountability, and higher education affordability, including proposals such as House Bill 646 (HB 646) by Rep. González to repeal the ESA program created last session.

With the ESA program in its first full cycle and Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa (D) having campaigned on changes to it, lawmakers will revisit eligibility, administration, and the relationship between public and private education funding. Other proposals seek new public school appropriations, formula changes, and revisions to accountability requirements.

Parental Choice and Education Spending

Proposals to increase funding should be weighed against existing appropriations, enrollment trends, administrative spending, and measurable outcomes. Changes to education savings accounts raise their own questions about parental access, eligibility, fiscal sustainability, and how far state requirements reach into participating providers.

The central consideration is whether policy empowers families to choose the learning environment that fits their children while maintaining accountability for public dollars, and whether new spending or mandates address identifiable needs or simply expand existing administrative structures.

How Divided Government Could Shape the 90th Session

The 90th Legislature will operate under a political arrangement Texas has not seen in decades. Democrats will hold the governor's office, the lieutenant governor's office, and the House. Republicans will hold the Senate majority.

That split is more complicated than a simple House-versus-Senate standoff. The lieutenant governor traditionally exercises substantial influence over the Senate through committee appointments and bill referrals, but those powers rest largely on rules the Senate adopts for itself each session. How a Republican majority and a Democratic presiding officer settle the Senate rules in January may shape the session as much as any single bill.

The opening filings reflect the parties' differences on Medicaid, labor regulation, immigration enforcement, and firearms. Party control alone, however, will not decide outcomes. Committee assignments, leadership decisions, chamber rules, fiscal constraints, and negotiations will all determine which measures receive serious consideration.

What Divided Government Means for Legislative Priorities

Divided government makes it harder to pass proposals that lack support across chambers. It can also push lawmakers toward agreement where they share concerns, even when they disagree on solutions. Property tax reform, government transparency, regulatory efficiency, infrastructure financing, and healthcare affordability all present openings for that kind of work.

The distinction to watch is whether negotiations produce meaningful policy change or simply preserve existing arrangements. For Texans evaluating the session, the focus should stay on what legislation actually does rather than who wrote it. A bill's consequences for taxpayers, property owners, businesses, and individual rights depend on what it authorizes, prohibits, requires, or funds.

What to Watch Before the March 12, 2027, Filing Deadline

Opening day is only the first stage of a long process. Lawmakers will keep filing before the Legislature convenes on January 12, and the picture of competing agendas will sharpen as the March 12 deadline approaches.

The number of bills filed on a subject should not be confused with the likelihood of passage or the significance of their effects. Some proposals overhaul whole areas of law; others make narrow adjustments. Bills on the same subject may take very different approaches.

The most useful analysis will examine the actual statutory changes, their fiscal implications, how they interact with existing law, and their consequences for Texans. That means close attention to legislation that expands government authority, creates new spending commitments, imposes regulatory obligations, alters local government powers, or touches constitutional protections, and equal attention to proposals that repeal unnecessary statutes, eliminate duplicative regulation, strengthen transparency, or constrain spending.

Following the 90th Session With Texas Policy Research

With more than a thousand bills filed in a single day, keeping up with what lawmakers are proposing is a real challenge. Texas Policy Research is building the tools to make that easier.

Our 90th Legislative Session hub brings together TPR's commentary on the 90th Legislature, Legislative Spotlights, Floor Reports, and links to official legislative resources in one place.

As we did ahead of the 89th Legislature, TPR is publishing free Bill Digests for every bill filed from the first day of prefiling through the March 12 deadline. Each digest summarizes what the legislation would do in plain language, so readers can understand a bill without working through the statutory text line by line. Digests from the 89th Legislature's regular and special sessions remain available as an archive.

Those digests lay the groundwork for TPR's Floor Reports. Once the session is underway, TPR will publish a vote recommendation on every bill placed on a Texas House or Senate calendar, except those on the House Local & Consent Calendar or the Senate Local & Uncontested Calendar, issued before the bill reaches a floor vote. Each recommendation is evaluated against TPR's Liberty Principles, and the positions we use are defined on our vote recommendations page.

The Fundamental Questions Facing the 90th Legislature

From Medicaid expansion and wage mandates to immigration enforcement, firearm regulation, property taxation, and data center development, the opening filings reflect competing visions of government's responsibilities and limits. Some of these debates are familiar; others respond to new technology, changing economic conditions, and a political landscape that shifted dramatically on November 3.

What connects them is a recurring question about the proper role of government in the lives of Texans. Should the state expand existing programs, or pursue reforms that reduce costs and increase competition? Should lawmakers impose new mandates, or address the incentives that shape economic activity? How should public safety be balanced against constitutional protections? And how can policymakers deliver meaningful tax relief without letting spending grow unchecked?

Those questions cannot be answered by counting bills or identifying their sponsors' party. They require careful examination of legislative language, fiscal consequences, and constitutional considerations. As filing continues toward March 12, the work is separating proposals that address real problems from those that create new obligations, costs, or restrictions without corresponding benefits.

The filing process has begun. The policy debates are only getting started.

---