According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1193 would not result in a significant cost to the State of Texas. While the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) would need to update the Texas Electronic Vital Events Registrar (TX EVER) system to include a new checkbox indicating when a party to an informal marriage declaration has opted for confidentiality, the associated expenses are expected to be one-time costs. These updates include changes to the marriage module, user acceptance testing, deployment to production, and post-deployment verification​.

The DSHS notes that these tasks may require vendor support and temporary augmentation of its information technology staff. However, the agency believes these additional tasks can be completed within its current budget and staffing levels. Thus, while some initial expenditures will be necessary to ensure technical compliance with the new requirement, the costs are not anticipated to be burdensome or ongoing.

Additionally, the bill is not expected to generate significant fiscal impacts for local governments. Although county clerks must withhold personally identifying information (PII) from certain public marriage records when confidentiality is requested, this change involves minimal administrative adjustment and no major new expenditures. Therefore, both state and local entities are positioned to implement H.B. 1193 without the need for new appropriations or structural overhauls.

HB 1193 aims to enhance privacy protections for individuals filing declarations of informal marriage in Texas. The bill introduces an opt-in mechanism allowing either party to request that their personally identifying information (PII)—such as full name, address, and partial Social Security number—be kept confidential. If this option is selected, county clerks and the Department of State Health Services' Vital Statistics Unit are prohibited from publicly disclosing the PII, except for the names of the parties involved. This measure addresses concerns that publicly accessible PII can pose safety risks, particularly for individuals who have experienced family violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. ​

The committee substitute version of the bill broadens its applicability by removing the requirement that the confidentiality request be tied to a history of victimization. This change allows any individual filing a declaration of informal marriage to opt for confidentiality, thereby extending privacy protections more universally. However, the substitute narrows the bill's scope by excluding traditional marriage license applications from these confidentiality provisions, focusing solely on informal marriage declarations. ​

From a fiscal standpoint, the LBB anticipates no significant cost to the state. While the Department of State Health Services would need to update the Texas Electronic Vital Events Registrar (TXEVER) system to accommodate the new confidentiality option, these modifications are expected to be one-time expenses manageable within existing resources. Similarly, county clerks may need to adjust their procedures, but these changes are not projected to impose substantial financial burdens. ​

In terms of liberty principles, the bill supports individual liberty by empowering individuals to control the dissemination of their personal information. It also aligns with the principle of limited government by providing a straightforward, opt-in mechanism without mandating extensive regulatory oversight. However, to ensure clarity and effective implementation, the bill would benefit from amendments that:​

Clearly define "personally identifying information" to avoid ambiguity.

Specify how the confidentiality provisions interact with existing public records laws and access rights for law enforcement, courts, and researchers.

Consider extending similar confidentiality options to traditional marriage license applications to provide consistent privacy protections across all forms of marriage documentation.​

By addressing these areas, the bill would more comprehensively safeguard individual privacy while maintaining transparency and accountability in public records. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES; Amend on HB 1193.

• Individual Liberty: The bill directly advances individual liberty by allowing a person to exercise greater control over the disclosure of their personally identifying information (PII) in an informal marriage declaration. For those who wish to protect their privacy—particularly in sensitive personal or security situations—the opt-in confidentiality option empowers individuals to safeguard their identities without needing to justify their reasons. This protects their right to live without undue public exposure or risk of harm and aligns with the principle that people should be free to make decisions about their private lives without government interference.

• Personal Responsibility: The legislation neither enhances nor erodes personal responsibility. Individuals are still accountable for the accuracy and legal implications of their declarations. The confidentiality provision does not remove any legal responsibilities, nor does it provide immunity from obligations (e.g., related to marital status, benefits, or disclosures required by law).

• Free Enterprise: In a broad sense, public records support private sector functions like identity verification, journalism, and data aggregation. Limiting access to certain marital records may slightly impede such functions. However, because the restriction applies only when confidentiality is requested and only affects informal marriage declarations (not all public records), the impact on enterprise is minimal and outweighed by the individual’s right to privacy.

• Private Property Rights: The bill does not address ownership, use, or transfer of private property, nor does it alter any rights related to real property, contracts, or land use. As such, it has no direct bearing on private property rights.

• Limited Government: While the bill avoids major regulatory expansion, it introduces new administrative requirements for county clerks and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS). These agencies must alter their information management systems and enforce access restrictions on certain records. This is a limited expansion of government function but one that could be justified if clearly defined. However, without explicit definitions for terms like "personally identifying information" or a process for appeals or oversight, it leaves room for discretionary or inconsistent application, which could erode transparency or lead to future bureaucratic creep. A narrowly tailored amendment clarifying scope and implementation would strengthen alignment with limited government principles.