According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 4 is not expected to have any significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill's primary function, redrawing the boundaries of Texas’s congressional districts, falls within the scope of routine legislative and administrative functions typically managed during the redistricting process every 10 years. These activities are largely absorbed within the existing operations and budgets of state agencies, particularly the Texas Legislative Council and the Secretary of State.

The bill does not create any new programs, agencies, or mandates requiring new funding. It also does not involve direct expenditures, revenue generation, or changes to tax policy. As such, any associated administrative costs, such as updating district maps, adjusting election materials, or training election staff, are expected to be minimal and covered within current appropriations.

At the local level, the fiscal note further clarifies that no significant fiscal implication is anticipated for units of local government. Counties and local election officials may incur minor administrative expenses related to updating voter rolls and precinct alignments, but these costs are not expected to be burdensome or require additional state aid.

In summary, SB 4 is fiscally neutral from both a state and local government perspective and does not introduce new spending obligations beyond what is typical during redistricting cycles.

SB 4 proposes a comprehensive redefinition of Texas’s 38 congressional districts based on 2020 U.S. Census data. The bill formally codifies new district boundaries through legal descriptions using census tracts and blocks, superseding all prior congressional redistricting legislation, specifically repealing the plan enacted in SB 6 (87th Legislature, 3rd Called Session, 2021). The new boundaries will apply beginning with the 2026 election cycle.

Although this version of SB 4 is presented as a procedural update aligned with the decennial redistricting cycle, its broader context and political implications remain significant. Like prior efforts, this bill reflects partisan priorities in the drawing of districts, with the potential to expand the congressional seat advantage of the dominant party. It does not respond to new census data but rather continues the implementation of the same map (Plan C2308) developed in earlier sessions and judicial proceedings. Consequently, this legislation represents a continuation of strategic redistricting choices rather than a neutral, apolitical adjustment based solely on population changes.

The bill does not impose any fiscal, regulatory, or legal burdens on individuals or businesses. However, it does implicate the principles of individual liberty and limited government through the manner in which it is structured and implemented. The reliance on external GIS files and the omission of criteria or justification within the legislative text weakens transparency and public understanding. Without accessible explanations of the rationale behind district lines, such as respect for communities of interest, compactness, or minority representation, the redistricting process risks appearing opaque or arbitrary. Even if legally permissible, this approach does not align with the spirit of limited, accountable government.

Nevertheless, redistricting is explicitly delegated to the states under the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that partisan gerrymandering presents non-justiciable political questions. This reality confines challenges to such legislation to the political and electoral arenas rather than the courts or principle-based policy scoring. As a result, concerns about fairness, representation, or electoral manipulation, however valid, are best addressed through public engagement and litigation under federal voting rights laws, not through philosophical objection.

Texas Policy Research, therefore, maintains a NEUTRAL position on SB 4. The bill is constitutionally authorized and does not substantively violate any of the core liberty principles as narrowly defined. However, it raises significant questions of democratic accountability, fairness, and public transparency, which merit robust scrutiny from the public and the courts, rather than policy disapproval from a liberty-first perspective.

• Individual Liberty: The bill has a potential impact on individual liberty, but the extent is difficult to assess definitively. On one hand, redistricting affects the ability of individuals and communities to have meaningful representation in Congress, a foundational aspect of individual liberty in a representative republic. By redrawing districts in ways that appear to intentionally disrupt minority coalition districts and increase partisan advantage, the bill could diminish the voting power of certain groups, particularly minority populations or Democratic-leaning constituencies. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that partisan gerrymandering is not a violation of individual constitutional rights (Rucho v. Common Cause, 2019), and the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Petteway v. Galveston County requires changes to the legal framework for how majority-minority districts are evaluated. From this legal standpoint, the Legislature may argue that it is upholding the rule of law rather than infringing liberty. Therefore, while individual liberty may be affected by the dilution or reshuffling of representation, the nature of redistricting as a political power-shaping tool makes these effects more political than philosophical.
• Personal Responsibility: This bill imposes no duties, penalties, or expectations on individuals. It does not regulate personal behavior, impose mandates, or create any new legal obligations for private citizens. As such, it has no clear or measurable impact on personal responsibility.
• Free Enterprise: There are no provisions in the bill that affect business, trade, or economic regulation. The redrawing of congressional boundaries may eventually influence federal policy by changing the composition of Texas’s delegation, but that indirect and speculative outcome does not directly affect free enterprise within the scope of the bill. Thus, the bill does not influence the liberty principle of free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not involve land use, property ownership, zoning, eminent domain, or any other matter related to private property rights. It concerns only the geographic organization of congressional districts and does not affect property law or property-based liberties.
• Limited Government: While the bill is legally valid, it raises concerns under the principle of limited government due to a lack of transparency and public accountability in its implementation. The bill does not include statutory detail explaining the redistricting criteria, demographic justification, or community-of-interest logic. Instead, it relies entirely on Plan C2308, a technical map file housed in a GIS database maintained by the Texas Legislative Council. This reliance on external systems to define core legislative boundaries limits meaningful public input and shifts important redistricting rationale outside the formal legislative text. From a limited government perspective, this reduces public accountability and opens the door for arbitrary or opaque decisions by a small number of political actors, precisely the kind of concentrated power the principle of limited government seeks to restrain.

Texas Special Session Redistricting Stakes: What You Need to Know

PLANC2308

• HB 4 (Similar To)