According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 1043 are relatively modest but notable, with the Legislative Budget Board estimating a net negative impact of $480,000 in General Revenue for the 2026 fiscal year. This cost accounts for a one-time expenditure related to conducting the required study on a distributed ledger-based title registry pilot program. Importantly, the bill does not make an appropriation itself but would establish the statutory framework necessary for future appropriation or funding action.

The General Land Office (GLO), the lead agency for the study, does not currently possess the internal expertise or program infrastructure to conduct a study of this technical complexity. As such, the agency anticipates hiring an external vendor partner with legal, technical, and policy experience in distributed ledger technologies and public sector applications. The projected cost reflects a 12- to 18-month engagement with such a vendor, who would be responsible for coordinating the working group, conducting the research, and preparing a final report with findings and recommendations by the statutory deadline.

While the Department of Insurance and Department of Information Resources are named as participating entities, they are expected to absorb any costs associated with their involvement using existing resources. The fiscal impact on local governments, particularly the counties participating in the pilot study, is indeterminate. These counties may incur staff-related or administrative costs as part of their engagement in the working group, but the extent of such costs is currently unknown​.

HB 1043 proposes a state-led study, coordinated by the Texas General Land Office (GLO), to explore the feasibility of implementing a distributed ledger (blockchain-based) title registry system for property records. The study would evaluate how such technology could improve the accuracy, security, and efficiency of recording real property transfers, with the goal of modernizing Texas’ title record systems. It would include input from counties, regulators, title insurers, banking industry representatives, and blockchain experts, and would involve a pilot program in at least one rural and one urban county. The projected cost of the study is $480,000 in General Revenue, with a report due to the Legislature by 2027.

While the bill reflects a forward-looking policy goal—exploring blockchain as a solution to longstanding inefficiencies in property recordation—it raises significant concerns about implementation. Specifically, the bill creates a top-down, state-managed pilot structure and appropriates nearly half a million dollars for a study that could potentially be led by local governments or private industry without direct state funding. The proposed structure risks establishing a precedent for expanded state involvement in what could be a more organically market-driven innovation space.

A "NO; Amend" recommendation reflects support for the technology and the modernization goal, but opposition to the mechanism used to pursue it. This approach encourages the Legislature to consider alternatives that would reduce or eliminate state spending, decentralize control of any pilot program, and instead enable counties or private sector actors to voluntarily pursue distributed ledger-based solutions under a permissive legal framework. Such a model would better align with the decentralized ethos of blockchain technology itself and could achieve similar outcomes without expanding state bureaucracy or diverting public funds. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO; Amend on HB 1043.

This recommendation urges the bill’s author and supporters to revise the legislation to allow for innovation without mandating a centralized or publicly funded approach, enabling greater flexibility and private-sector initiative while preserving the intent to modernize real property recordation systems. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO; Amend on HB 1043.

• Individual Liberty: The bill has the potential to enhance individual liberty by exploring a technology that could give property owners more secure, transparent, and accessible control over their title records. A blockchain-based registry could reduce fraud, prevent bureaucratic delays, and increase public trust in property ownership. However, because the bill creates a state-led study with centralized oversight, it may also be seen as reducing individual liberty by consolidating decision-making power within a government agency, rather than allowing individuals or local entities to freely pursue innovation.
• Personal Responsibility: Blockchain-based systems empower individuals to verify and monitor their own property records, fostering a culture of ownership and accountability. By reducing reliance on gatekeepers or manual processes, the system envisioned in the study could promote personal responsibility in managing real estate interests. The pilot itself, however, may dull this benefit if individuals are not given the opportunity to opt into or interact with the system directly during the study phase.
• Free Enterprise: This is the area of greatest concern. While the technology being studied is rooted in free-market innovation, the mechanism is not. The bill relies on a state-managed, taxpayer-funded pilot rather than enabling private companies or local jurisdictions to experiment and compete freely. A more liberty-aligned approach would have minimized government involvement and allowed market demand and competition to drive innovation. By placing the GLO at the center of the process, the bill may inadvertently crowd out or delay private-sector solutions.
• Private Property Rights: If implemented in the future, a distributed ledger registry could strengthen private property rights by reducing title disputes, streamlining transfers, and offering a secure, tamper-proof record of ownership. However, since the current bill only funds a study and does not alter or improve existing systems yet, these benefits remain hypothetical and contingent on later legislative or regulatory action.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill most clearly conflicts with liberty principles. CSHB 1043 expands government activity by: Authorizing a new initiative under the GLO; Appropriating nearly half a million dollars in General Revenue; Creating a multi-agency working group with no guarantee of restraint; Imposing a top-down pilot rather than enabling bottom-up experimentation. These features reflect a state-led approach to innovation, which is at odds with the principle that government should play a minimal, enabling role—not a directive one—in emerging technologies.