According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 5093 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The Secretary of State’s office, which would be responsible for implementing the bill’s provisions, anticipates that any administrative costs associated with disclosing the personal contact information of notaries public could be absorbed within the agency’s existing resources.

Similarly, the legislation does not present any notable fiscal implications for local governments. Since the responsibility for managing notary information resides with the state-level Secretary of State, municipal or county governments are not expected to incur any new costs or require additional resources as a result of this bill’s enactment.

In short, the bill would enable a policy shift in information disclosure without necessitating new funding or staff, indicating a neutral budgetary effect at both state and local levels.

HB 5093 seeks to amend Section 552.11765 of the Texas Government Code to authorize the Secretary of State to disclose the personal contact information—specifically the home address, home telephone number, and personal email address—of notaries public. This change reverses privacy protections implemented during the previous legislative session that shielded such personal information from public information requests under the Public Information Act.

While the bill aims to address a genuine administrative concern—that recent confidentiality rules have inadvertently made it more difficult for individuals to contact notaries in the event of legal disputes—it does so in a manner that raises serious civil liberties and safety concerns. Under the proposed language, the Secretary of State would be allowed to disclose sensitive personal information without providing any notice, consent, or opt-out mechanism for the affected notaries. Many notaries operate from their private residences and use personal emails and phone numbers because they are sole proprietors or independent contractors without business infrastructure. Releasing this information publicly may expose them to harassment, doxxing, identity theft, or other forms of personal risk, particularly when notaries are involved in contentious legal or financial matters.

Furthermore, the bill undermines principles of limited government and individual privacy by granting a state agency expanded discretion to override prior statutory protections without judicial oversight or a compelling public safety rationale. It reintroduces the very problems that the legislature sought to solve with last session’s reforms—namely, that government bodies should not be in the business of routinely publishing private citizen data. Restoring the pre-2023 status quo, without implementing modern privacy safeguards, would be a step backward at a time when digital threats and public exposure are increasingly consequential.

Importantly, HB 5093 does not propose any safeguards to mitigate the risks it introduces. There is no requirement that the Secretary of State limit disclosure to professional contact information. There is no requirement for notaries to be notified or consulted. There is no opt-in provision, and no mechanism for individuals to request redaction or alternative arrangements. These omissions make the bill’s impact disproportionately invasive compared to its intended administrative benefit.

Although the bill has no significant fiscal impact and is narrow in its legal scope, its implications for civil liberties are significant. It exposes private citizens, many of whom perform a public service as part-time notaries, to unnecessary risk and violates reasonable expectations of personal privacy. These concerns are not hypothetical but real, especially in a time of growing threats to people in public-facing roles.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 5093. The state’s interest in administrative convenience does not justify exposing individuals to unwanted intrusion or jeopardizing their safety. A more balanced solution would involve restoring access through voluntary disclosure or secure contact portals—approaches that protect transparency while respecting personal autonomy. Until such reforms are considered, the privacy and liberty of Texas citizens must take precedence.

• Individual Liberty: The bill infringes on individual liberty by authorizing the state to publicly disclose personally identifiable information (PII)—including home addresses, personal emails, and phone numbers—of notaries public without their consent. Notaries are often private individuals who use personal contact information because they do not operate a formal business office. Publishing this data, especially in today’s digital environment, subjects them to potential harassment, stalking, or exploitation. This violates their right to personal privacy and autonomy. Individual liberty includes the right to be secure in one's personal life and not have sensitive information involuntarily exposed by the state.
• Personal Responsibility: While notaries have a duty to remain accessible in order to perform their official functions and be accountable for their public role, personal responsibility does not necessitate surrendering all privacy. This bill assumes that because notaries voluntarily enter public service, they should be subject to a level of exposure that may be unnecessary and disproportionate. A more responsible approach would balance accountability with safety, perhaps by allowing optional publication of business contact information or creating secure channels for necessary communication. The bill shifts the burden of managing privacy risks onto individuals, without giving them tools to mitigate those risks.
• Free Enterprise: The majority of notaries in Texas operate as independent contractors, freelancers, or small business owners. Public disclosure of their personal contact details could discourage people from entering or continuing in the profession, especially those who work from home or rely on supplemental income. Some notaries may be forced to invest in separate business contact infrastructure to protect their privacy, introducing additional cost burdens. These consequences undermine the freedom of individuals to engage in commerce on their own terms and erode entrepreneurial participation in a profession that is crucial to legal and financial transactions.
• Private Property Rights: Releasing someone’s home address, particularly against their will and without due process, challenges the principle that individuals have control over information connected to their private property. In Texas, property rights are fundamental, and those rights extend to the ability to keep one’s home location secure and confidential. This bill effectively overrides a citizen’s control over how their property-related information is shared by the government. By removing statutory confidentiality protections, the state infringes on individuals’ rights to govern the disclosure of their own data.
• Limited Government: Perhaps most fundamentally, the bill represents an expansion of administrative authority at the expense of individual protections. It reverses confidentiality safeguards passed in a previous legislative session and empowers the Secretary of State to disclose personal information without transparency, consent, or legislative oversight. Limited government means that state power should be restrained and exercised only when absolutely necessary, and with appropriate checks. This bill unnecessarily empowers the executive branch to infringe on citizen privacy, opening the door to future erosions of data protection standards.

• SB 1571 (Same As)