According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HJR 1 is not expected to result in significant fiscal implications for the state of Texas beyond the cost of publication. As is customary for proposed constitutional amendments, the state will incur a one-time cost for publishing the resolution in newspapers across the state as required by law. That cost is estimated to be $191,689.

This publication expense is a standard and anticipated cost associated with all constitutional amendments placed before Texas voters. The LBB assumes that the Secretary of State and other relevant agencies can absorb this cost within their existing budgetary resources, and therefore it does not represent a new recurring expenditure or structural change to state finances.

For local governments, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated. The amendment does not impose new duties or create new administrative burdens for counties or municipalities. Since the resolution merely clarifies and expands prosecutorial jurisdiction over election offenses, any resulting increase in case volume handled by the Office of the Attorney General is expected to be absorbed using current resources. Overall, the measure is fiscally neutral beyond its minimal publication cost.

HJR 1 proposes a constitutional amendment that would grant the Texas Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction with county and district attorneys to prosecute criminal offenses under the Texas Election Code. This measure addresses the limitations imposed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in State v. Stephens (2021), which ruled that current statutes granting unilateral prosecutorial power to the Attorney General in criminal matters, including election offenses, were unconstitutional unless explicitly authorized in the state’s foundational legal framework. HJR 1 corrects that deficiency by amending Article IV, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution to grant this authority explicitly.

The proposed amendment does not create new crimes, expand the scope of the Election Code, or change penalties for violations. Instead, it clarifies who can enforce existing law by providing the Attorney General with concurrent prosecutorial power, ensuring that if local prosecutors decline to take action on election-related offenses, the state retains the authority to pursue accountability. The amendment thus creates a prosecutorial backstop without displacing or eliminating local jurisdiction. County and district attorneys retain their traditional authority and may continue to prosecute election violations independently.

Supporters of HJR 1 argue that this reform is critical for addressing politically sensitive or resource-constrained situations where local prosecutors may be disincentivized from pursuing election law violations, particularly in highly polarized or partisan environments. Without the ability for the Attorney General to intervene, election law enforcement could become inconsistent across the state, weakening the rule of law and public confidence in electoral integrity. HJR 1 ensures that enforcement is not contingent on local political dynamics and promotes uniform accountability statewide.

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential for politicized enforcement, especially considering that the Attorney General is a statewide elected official. While this risk is real, HJR 1 does not alter substantive law or criminalize new conduct, it only expands who may bring a case under existing law. Moreover, as with any exercise of prosecutorial authority, oversight mechanisms and public scrutiny will remain critical to ensuring fairness and nonpartisan application of the law. The amendment’s structure, granting concurrent jurisdiction, not exclusive or preemptive authority, maintains a balance between state-level oversight and local prosecutorial autonomy.

From a liberty principles perspective, HJR 1 strengthens Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility by reinforcing protections for fair elections. It ensures that illegal conduct, such as fraud or ballot tampering, can be investigated and prosecuted, even when local discretion may result in inaction. This promotes trust in the electoral process and affirms that participation in elections comes with both rights and responsibilities. The amendment does not infringe on Free Enterprise or Private Property Rights and does not expand the reach of government regulation in economic or civil contexts. It also aligns with a vision of Limited Government by targeting enforcement toward existing laws, without expanding state power into new policy areas.

Fiscal implications are minimal. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the only anticipated state cost is the $191,689 required to publish the proposed amendment for voter consideration, a standard expense for constitutional propositions. No significant fiscal impact is expected for state agencies or local governments, as the Attorney General’s Office is expected to absorb any increased caseload using existing resources.

In sum, HJR 1 offers a balanced, constitutionally sound solution to a real legal and procedural gap in the enforcement of Texas election law. It preserves local prosecutorial authority while ensuring that the state can act when necessary to protect election integrity. It does not disrupt the broader criminal justice system or create new risks to civil liberties. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HJR 1.

The resolution has no direct impact on Free Enterprise. It does not regulate business activity, commerce, or market competition. However, to the extent that fair and transparent elections support a stable legal and political environment, a condition favorable for business confidence and investment, the resolution may provide indirect reinforcement of a predictable economic climate.

There is no impact on Private Property Rights. The resolution does not authorize seizures, change zoning or eminent domain laws, or affect ownership or use of private property. It is narrowly focused on the prosecution of election-related crimes and does not touch the realm of property law or civil asset regulation.

The resolution strongly reinforces the principle of Personal Responsibility. It sends a clear signal that violations of the Texas Election Code will be pursued, even if local prosecutors are unwilling to act. By ensuring that bad actors cannot avoid consequences through jurisdictional gaps, the state affirms the expectation that individuals engaged in the electoral process must do so lawfully. This accountability mechanism deters future misconduct and reinforces a culture where civic duties, such as voting, ballot handling, and election administration, are treated with the seriousness they deserve.

This principle is the most debated in the context of the resolution. On one hand, opponents argue that empowering the Attorney General to prosecute election crimes independently of local prosecutors concentrates power at the state level and diminishes local autonomy, traditionally a core value in Texas governance. From this view, the resolution risks undermining the decentralized nature of Texas’s criminal justice system. On the other hand, proponents contend that the resolution actually reinforces the principle of Limited Government in a constitutional sense. It does not create new powers or criminalize new conduct; it simply ensures that the laws already passed by the Legislature can be enforced statewide. If local prosecutors choose not to act, whether due to political pressure, limited resources, or policy preferences, the resolution provides a narrow, targeted remedy. It limits government by focusing only on election law violations and avoids the need for sweeping bureaucratic expansions or new regulatory regimes. Moreover, by requiring constitutional authorization, the measure ensures that the Attorney General’s power remains within clearly defined and democratically approved boundaries.

The resolution promotes Individual Liberty by enhancing the enforceability of election laws, which are foundational to protecting the rights of voters. The ability of citizens to freely and fairly participate in elections is a core aspect of representative government. When election laws are not enforced due to local prosecutorial inaction, individual rights can be undermined, especially the right to have one’s vote carry equal weight in a lawfully conducted election. By ensuring that the Attorney General has concurrent authority to prosecute election crimes, the resolution upholds the integrity of elections and thus strengthens individual liberty. However, concerns about potential overreach or politically motivated prosecutions have been raised. Critics argue that granting prosecutorial discretion to a partisan statewide official (the Attorney General) may lead to selective enforcement that chills participation or disproportionately affects political opponents. While this concern warrants ongoing oversight, the resolution does not create new offenses or expand the reach of government into private life; it merely ensures that existing laws can be enforced uniformly.

• House Committee on State Affairs: 8Y/5N (2 Absent)