Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 3113 proposes an amendment to the Texas Election Code requiring that, in any county where elections are conducted by a hand count of voted paper ballots, the ballots must be designed to be scannable and processable by an optical scanner. The purpose is to ensure that even where manual counting is performed, ballots retain compatibility with electronic scanning systems. This would enable an alternative method of counting or verification if needed. The bill would create a new Section 52.076 under Subchapter C, Chapter 52 of the Election Code.

The requirement would apply specifically to counties that opt to perform hand counts instead of using electronic tabulation systems. It does not mandate the use of electronic scanning for primary ballot counting but mandates that ballots be capable of being scanned. The bill anticipates the use of standardized ballot design and possibly new procurement needs for counties currently using non-scannable formats.

The bill does not include funding provisions or exceptions for small or rural counties, meaning any adaptation costs would need to be covered locally.

The originally filed version of HB 3113 required that, in counties conducting a hand count of paper ballots, those ballots must be capable of being scanned and processed by "automatic tabulating equipment" as defined by Section 121.003 of the Texas Election Code. It specifically referenced this statutory definition, tying the scanning requirement to a particular type of equipment traditionally used for electronic tabulation.

In contrast, the Committee Substitute simplifies the language by removing the formal reference to "automatic tabulating equipment" and instead requires that ballots simply be "capable of being scanned and processed by an optical scanner". The change eliminates the legal cross-reference and uses more direct, plain language, likely to make the bill easier for election administrators to understand and implement without needing to consult separate statute definitions.

Overall, the Committee Substitute slightly broadens the types of technology counties could use (any optical scanner, not necessarily equipment that meets the "automatic tabulating equipment" definition) and streamlines the statutory language for clarity.

Author

Ellen Troxclair

Carl Tepper

John Bucy III

Michael Schofield

Cody Harris

Co-Author

Rafael Anchia

David Cook

Ryan Guillen

Penny Morales Shaw

Jon Rosenthal

Chris Turner

Sponsor

Peter Flores

Contact the Author

Rep. Ellen Troxclair

Capitol Phone:

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.322

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3113 would have no fiscal implications for the state. This means that the implementation of the bill would not require additional appropriations, nor would it impose any significant new costs on state agencies or the state budget.

At the local government level, the LBB likewise anticipates no significant fiscal implication. Although counties that conduct hand counts would be required to use ballots capable of being scanned by an optical scanner, it is expected that most affected counties would be able to absorb any minor additional costs within their existing resources. Counties that already use scannable ballots or optical scan systems for other elections would likely face minimal or no new costs.

While the fiscal note characterizes the local impact as not "significant," it does not preclude the possibility that smaller or more rural counties could experience some marginal administrative costs, especially if they need to adjust printing contracts or upgrade ballot layouts to ensure compatibility with scanners.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 3113 improves the accuracy, security, and verifiability of elections in counties that conduct hand counts by requiring that paper ballots be scannable by an optical scanner. The goal is to ensure that even in counties preferring manual counting, ballots are ready for faster, more reliable audits when needed, thus boosting public confidence in election outcomes.

The bill has no significant fiscal impact on the state or local governments, and it does not mandate any change to counties already using optical scan systems. By focusing only on those counties that hand-count, the bill avoids imposing broad, unnecessary mandates on Texas elections overall. It promotes transparency and election integrity — core elements of protecting individual liberty and ensuring public trust in the democratic process.

Because HB 3113 strengthens election security without meaningful fiscal or operational drawbacks, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES.

Individual Liberty: The bill strengthens individual liberty by helping protect the right of each voter to have their ballot counted accurately and securely. Scannable ballots allow faster and more reliable audits, meaning individual votes are less likely to be lost, miscounted, or questioned. This improvement enhances the trust citizens can place in the electoral process — a cornerstone of a free society.
Personal Responsibility: The bill does not substantially change personal responsibilities for voters. However, it could modestly increase the responsibility of election officials by requiring them to procure and use ballot formats that are compatible with optical scanners. That said, the burden is administrative and not tied to citizen behavior.
Free Enterprise: There is a very minor negative impact here: counties that hand count may need to purchase new ballots or revise printing contracts, which could modestly limit vendor options. However, since the fiscal note found no significant financial burden, this impact is likely negligible for most counties.
Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect private property rights. It deals strictly with election administration and ballot formatting.
Limited Government: Normally, imposing a new state-level election mandate would be a concern for limited government. But here, because it only applies to a specific set of counties (those doing hand counts) and relates directly to securing elections — a core, legitimate function of government — the intrusion is minimal. Nonetheless, it is technically an added state requirement on local practice, which slightly enlarges state oversight in election administration.

View Bill Text and Status