According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1936 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill’s repeal of Section 681.011(f-2) of the Transportation Code, which pertains to the issuance of citations for unauthorized parking in spaces reserved for persons with disabilities, is anticipated to result in minimal administrative changes that can be managed within existing agency budgets.

The bill does not require the creation of new programs, departments, or enforcement infrastructure. As such, agencies such as the Department of Public Safety and the Office of Court Administration are expected to implement the provisions of the bill using current personnel and resources without the need for additional funding. The expectation is that enforcement practices may shift or expand, but those changes would not trigger substantial state expenditures.

Additionally, the bill is not expected to create a significant fiscal burden for local governments. Local law enforcement entities and courts may see a modest increase in the issuance or processing of citations related to disability parking violations, but any associated costs or revenue changes are projected to be negligible and absorbable within existing local operational budgets.

HB 1936 repeals Section 681.011(f-2) of the Texas Transportation Code, a provision that currently limits the issuance of citations for unauthorized parking in spaces designated for persons with disabilities if those spaces lack signage that complies with the standards set by the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation. The bill is intended to restore law enforcement’s ability to issue citations in all instances of unauthorized use, regardless of signage compliance, due to reported confusion and a decline in enforcement in some localities.

While the intent to strengthen accessibility enforcement is commendable, the bill, as currently written, removes a key procedural safeguard without replacing it. Section 681.011(f-2) exists to ensure that drivers are not penalized when signage does not meet state standards, providing a check on enforcement where compliance by property owners or governmental entities is unclear. Repealing this provision without a requirement for clear and visible signage potentially subjects individuals to citations in ambiguous or improperly marked areas. This creates an undue risk of penalizing well-meaning drivers and erodes a fundamental principle of due process: fair notice of the law.

Additionally, the bill creates a broader enforcement authority without incorporating procedural checks or evidentiary standards. Without language requiring officer observation or verifying documentation, it is conceivable that this change could lead to citation practices based on unverified third-party reports, unclear signage, or even the future use of automated enforcement systems. This would represent a quiet but meaningful expansion of government power, a shift away from the conservative principle of limited government and accountable enforcement.

There is also a concern that repealing this provision enables future municipalities or agencies to adopt photo-only or passive surveillance citation systems for parking enforcement. Such mechanisms often lack transparency, remove the judgment of peace officers, and risk disproportionately penalizing individuals who cannot readily contest or investigate the claim. The failure to include restrictions against such automated or remote enforcement tools raises additional concerns about potential overreach and a lack of procedural fairness.

In light of these issues, HB 1936 in its current form should not advance. It fails to strike an appropriate balance between ensuring enforcement of accessible parking standards and protecting individual liberty, property rights, and due process. A more responsible path forward would be to amend the bill to ensure that enforcement is only permitted when signage meets legal requirements, that peace officers document relevant observations before issuing citations, and that the law explicitly prohibits automated or remote enforcement unless accompanied by in-person verification.

Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1936 unless amended as described above. This position does not oppose the bill’s intent but instead reflects a commitment to constitutional principles and legislative precision. The bill must be revised to include reasonable protections that ensure clarity, accountability, and fairness in enforcement.

• Individual Liberty: The repeal of Section 681.011(f-2), Transportation Code, removes a procedural safeguard that protects individuals from being cited for parking violations when the designated space lacks required signage. Without this protection, individuals may be subjected to enforcement action without clear or sufficient notice of a violation. This undermines the principle that laws must be knowable and understandable to the average person before they can be fairly enforced. Individual liberty requires not only the freedom to act but protection from arbitrary or unclear state action. A law that authorizes citations in unmarked or improperly marked spaces risks penalizing people for behavior they cannot reasonably be expected to know is unlawful, placing the burden on citizens instead of maintaining the state’s responsibility to post clear standards.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle of personal responsibility by aiming to restore meaningful enforcement of accessibility parking laws. Law-abiding drivers should be aware of and respect designated accessible spaces. By removing obstacles to enforcement, the bill seeks to ensure that individuals think twice before improperly occupying parking spaces reserved for persons with disabilities. This aspect of the bill aligns with a pro-responsibility framework: public accommodations exist to ensure equal opportunity, and individuals who knowingly violate these boundaries undermine both personal accountability and the rights of others.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill is not aimed at businesses directly, there may be minor impacts to free enterprise if law enforcement practices change in ways that place new burdens on businesses (e.g., expectations to upgrade signage or face public backlash if their lots become high-ticket areas). These effects are secondary but still worth considering in terms of customer experience and public image.
• Private Property Rights: If enforcement is allowed in areas where signage is unclear or not compliant with state standards, property owners, especially business owners, may face pressure or liability related to citations issued on their premises. For example, customers ticketed in a private lot may raise complaints or disputes that indirectly harm the property owner’s relationship with the public or expose them to enforcement oversight. Additionally, if the law is interpreted to allow enforcement on private property without consent or adequate warning, it could conflict with the rights of property owners to determine the use and regulation of their own parking lots. This indirect pressure on private property rights should be addressed in any amendment to the bill.
• Limited Government: Perhaps the most troubling impact of the bill is its erosion of the principle of limited government. The current law places clear restrictions on when and how law enforcement may issue citations, including signage compliance and officer observation. Repealing these requirements without offering a new framework effectively grants broader discretionary power to the state without corresponding checks. This could lead to uneven or arbitrary enforcement, particularly if based on unverified complaints or passive surveillance tools. Moreover, removing restrictions without replacing them with due process protections, such as evidentiary standards or signage requirements, opens the door to expanded government intrusion into individuals’ lives for minor infractions, something limited-government advocates strongly resist.