According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 48 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill creates a temporary working group to study statewide alert notification systems, but does not mandate new programs, agencies, or appropriations. The LBB assumes that any administrative or operational costs associated with supporting the working group, such as organizing hearings, compiling reports, or consulting with other agencies, can be absorbed by the existing resources of the Texas Division of Emergency Management and the Department of Public Safety.

There are also no fiscal implications anticipated for local governments. The bill does not place any mandates on cities, counties, or other political subdivisions, nor does it require them to contribute financially or administratively to the working group’s activities. This makes the measure relatively low-impact from a budgetary perspective at both the state and local levels.

While the bill directs the working group to produce a report and recommendations for possible legislation, any future costs that might arise from implementing those recommendations would be addressed separately through subsequent legislative action. As introduced, however, the bill establishes only a study mechanism with no direct or significant cost implications.

HB 48 proposes the formation of a nine-member, temporary working group to evaluate the state’s emergency alert systems and make recommendations to the legislature by December 2026. The working group would study existing alerts administered by the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and the Department of Public Safety (DPS), including AMBER, Silver, Blue, Active Shooter, CLEAR, and others. Its goals include examining state and federal regulatory frameworks and addressing “notification fatigue,” a growing concern where individuals become desensitized to emergency alerts. According to supporting testimony, nearly 30% of Texans have opted out of alerts in some form, the highest rate in the nation, suggesting the issue may merit review.

Despite this framing, HB 48 falls short of meeting core liberty principles in its current form and raises concerns common among limited-government advocates. While well-intentioned, the bill creates a new governmental body, albeit temporary, without clear necessity, defined metrics for success, or guarantees against future expansion of state authority. It risks becoming a precedent for bureaucratic overreach. The bill could be used as a platform to justify new mandates or expanded regulation of personal communications technologies, especially without language limiting its scope to non-binding, non-regulatory recommendations. The absence of required representation from privacy advocates, civil liberties experts, or local control stakeholders further compounds these concerns.

Furthermore, the bill does not task the working group with evaluating whether any of these alerts could be consolidated, sunsetted, or better managed through private-sector partnerships, omissions that may lead to a bias in favor of continued or expanded state control. The structure centralizes authority in the executive branch, giving full appointment power to the TDEM chief, without requiring legislative oversight or approval of membership. While the bill claims no fiscal impact, the working group will still utilize agency staff time and administrative resources, diverting attention and effort from core public safety functions.

Though the bill does not create criminal penalties, grant rulemaking authority, or directly restrict individual rights, it creates a procedural mechanism that could, without amendments, lead to legislation counterproductive to individual liberty, personal autonomy, and limited government. To address these concerns, several meaningful amendments would be needed, such as limiting the scope of recommendations, preventing regulatory implementation without future legislative action, requiring representation from civil liberties organizations, and adding sunset protections against the use of findings as automatic justification for future mandates.

As written, the bill is not sufficiently aligned with the Liberty Principles to justify support. However, with targeted and substantive amendments, it could become acceptable. Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 48 unless amended as described above.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not directly infringe on individual rights, but it creates a mechanism through which future legislation could be shaped, potentially resulting in mandates around alert systems, reduced ability to opt out, or expanded surveillance under the guise of public safety. Without strong privacy protections or limits on the scope of recommendations, the bill risks compromising individual autonomy and informed consent in personal communications.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill identifies a behavioral issue, “notification fatigue”, but frames the solution in terms of system adjustments rather than personal decision-making. While not a direct threat to personal responsibility, the underlying approach could lead to future interventions that shift accountability from the individual to the state, especially if alerts become mandatory or one-size-fits-all.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill does not currently regulate the private sector, the study could produce recommendations that lead to future mandates for technology companies, mobile carriers, or app developers. These could include compliance requirements, integration burdens, or liability concerns, interfering with the free market’s ability to innovate and respond flexibly to public safety needs.
• Private Property Rights: There are no provisions in the bill that affect land use, physical property, or regulatory takings. Unless future legislation were to require physical infrastructure changes or geographic zoning tied to alerts, this bill has no current impact on private property rights.
• Limited Government: The bill creates a new, government-appointed working group to study alert systems, despite no clear evidence that existing agencies lack the authority or capacity to address the issue. This adds unnecessary bureaucracy and sets a precedent for legislative study mechanisms that often outlive their usefulness or lead to increased government intervention. It conflicts with the principle that the government should remain minimal and only act where essential.