The fiscal implications of HB 2253 are minimal, with no significant impact anticipated to the State. According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), any potential costs associated with implementing the bill can be absorbed within existing resources. This indicates that the administrative adjustments required for local authorities to manage the cancellation of bond measure elections during declared disasters do not necessitate additional funding or significant logistical changes at the state level.

The bill primarily grants local authorities the flexibility to cancel bond elections under specific conditions, such as when the Governor declares a disaster affecting the area. While the bill mandates certain procedural requirements—such as holding public meetings and providing notices of cancellation—these are not expected to incur significant expenses beyond what local entities can manage with their current infrastructure.

Additionally, there is no significant fiscal implication expected for local governments. The cancellation of a bond election under disaster conditions is considered a rare and exceptional event, and local election authorities typically have the capacity to handle such adjustments without incurring extra costs. The use of existing public notification systems and standard meeting protocols helps minimize any financial burden.

In summary, HB 2253 is designed to offer flexibility and safety during emergencies without imposing significant financial burdens on either the state or local government.

The overall vote recommendation for HB 2253 is "Yes". The bill provides a practical and safety-oriented approach to managing elections on bond measures during emergency situations. By allowing the cancellation of bond measure elections when a disaster declaration is issued by the governor, the bill ensures that the health, safety, and general welfare of voters and election workers are prioritized.

The bill effectively addresses a gap in current law by establishing a clear protocol for canceling elections on bond measures when conducting the election would pose a significant risk due to disasters such as natural emergencies or public health crises. Unlike the original version, which broadly allowed cancellation of any measure election, the committee substitute specifically limits the cancellation authority to bond issuance elections. This narrower focus ensures that the provision is not misused or overextended, maintaining public trust in the electoral process.

Moreover, the bill requires a transparent and accountable decision-making process. The governing body must hold an open meeting, provide public notice, and justify the cancellation based on specific criteria such as damage to the election system or harm to voters or election workers. This requirement not only promotes public transparency but also builds community confidence that the decision to cancel is made thoughtfully and appropriately.

From a fiscal perspective, the bill has no significant financial impact on the state or local governments. Since it primarily provides procedural flexibility without requiring new infrastructure or significant expenditures, it represents a cost-efficient solution to a practical problem.

In summary, HB 2253 strikes a balance between safety and democratic process by setting well-defined conditions for canceling bond measure elections during emergencies. The bill's structured approach ensures that public input and safety are considered, while also maintaining the integrity of the electoral system. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2253.

• Individual Liberty: HB 2253 indirectly supports individual liberty by prioritizing public safety during emergencies. By allowing the cancellation of bond measure elections when a disaster declaration is issued, the bill aims to protect voters and election workers from potential harm. While canceling an election could be seen as a restriction on exercising the right to vote, the bill requires that the decision be based on legitimate safety concerns. Additionally, the requirement for an open meeting ensures that the decision-making process is transparent and publicly accountable, thus safeguarding citizens' rights to information and participation.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill enhances personal responsibility on the part of local authorities by requiring them to carefully evaluate the situation before deciding to cancel an election. Authorities must consider whether the disaster poses significant risks to the election system, workers, or voters. This thoughtful approach promotes responsible governance, as it mandates that the decision to cancel be based on objective criteria rather than subjective judgment. Furthermore, the public meeting requirement ensures that responsible decision-making occurs in a deliberative setting.
• Free Enterprise: HB 2253 does not directly affect free enterprise, as it primarily addresses electoral processes rather than economic activities. However, in a broader context, ensuring the safety of community members during disasters may prevent disruptions that could indirectly impact local businesses and economic activities. By mitigating potential safety hazards, the bill may help maintain community stability, which supports a healthy business environment.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly impact private property rights. However, in scenarios where a disaster declaration affects private properties, the ability to cancel an election may help allocate resources more efficiently towards recovery and safety measures. By allowing local authorities to focus on disaster response rather than conducting an election, the bill indirectly supports the protection of private property during emergencies.
• Limited Government: HB 2253 aligns with the principle of limited government by allowing local authorities to make decisions autonomously within a structured framework. Rather than imposing state-level mandates, the bill grants discretion to local entities while ensuring that decisions are transparent and justified through public meetings. This approach minimizes top-down control and encourages local decision-making, aligning with the principle that government intervention should be minimal and targeted.