According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 524 is estimated to have no significant fiscal implications for the State. The fiscal note states that the bill would require municipalities to submit proposed initiative or referendum measures to the Office of the Attorney General within five days after receiving a petition, and would require the attorney general to determine within 30 days whether the measure would violate state law.

The LBB identifies the Office of the Attorney General as the affected state agency. The fiscal note reports that the attorney general anticipates any additional legal work required by the bill could be reasonably absorbed using existing resources. As a result, the fiscal note does not identify a need for additional state appropriations, staffing, or other significant state expenditures.

For local governments, the LBB also anticipates no significant fiscal implications. Although municipalities subject to the bill would have new procedural responsibilities, including timely submission of petitioned measures for attorney general review, the fiscal note does not project high costs to cities or other local governmental units.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 524 unless amended as described below. HB 524 addresses a legitimate issue: a home-rule municipality should not be able to use a citizen-initiated ballot measure to adopt or maintain an ordinance, regulation, or local policy that conflicts with state law. The bill analysis explains that the measure was prompted by concern over local ballot proposals, including the 2024 Lubbock marijuana-enforcement proposal, that could have limited enforcement of conduct that remains criminal under state law. The state has a valid interest in preserving the supremacy and uniform application of state law where the Legislature has occupied the field or expressly limited municipal authority.

However, the bill’s mechanism is broader than necessary and creates a significant limited-government concern. The Committee Substitute would require covered home-rule municipalities to submit qualifying petition-initiated measures to the attorney general before ordering an election. The attorney general would then determine whether any portion of the measure would violate state law, and if the attorney general makes that determination, the municipality would be prohibited from holding the election. This gives a single state executive officer practical gatekeeping authority over whether certain local voter-initiated measures may appear on the ballot.

That structure shifts the legal check from a neutral court to an executive-branch determination. State-law preemption questions can be complex, fact-specific, and contested. Under the Committee Substitute, an attorney general determination that “any portion” of a measure would violate state law prevents the election from being held, even if other portions of the measure may be lawful or severable. This creates a risk that ballot access may be denied based on an overbroad or disputed legal conclusion without the procedural safeguards ordinarily associated with judicial review.

The concern is heightened by the change from the introduced version. The originally filed bill allowed a qualified voter of the municipality to challenge an adverse attorney general determination in court, and the court’s ruling would determine whether the municipality must or may not order the election. The Committee Substitute removes that express judicial challenge process while adding authority for the attorney general to extend the review period by two weeks. In practical terms, the substitute increases the attorney general’s control over timing and removes a bill-specific avenue for judicial review, making the state executive review process more decisive and less constrained.

The bill also burdens local initiative and referendum rights by inserting a mandatory state review process between petition submission and election ordering. Municipalities would have to submit measures within five days of receiving a petition, wait up to 30 days for attorney general review, and potentially wait an additional two weeks if the attorney general gives notice of an extension. The bill would also override conflicting municipal charter deadlines and require covered elections to be held on a uniform election date. These provisions may be administratively manageable, but they make locally chartered petition-and-election procedures more dependent on discretionary state executive approval and timing.

From a taxpayer and administrative standpoint, the fiscal note indicates that no significant fiscal implication to the state or local governments is anticipated, and the Office of the Attorney General expects to absorb any additional legal work with existing resources. That reduces, but does not eliminate, the governance concern. A bill can have limited fiscal cost while still expanding state discretion, setting a problematic precedent, and creating future litigation risk over ballot access, preemption, and the scope of attorney general authority.

The bill should be amended to make the attorney general’s determination advisory rather than binding, or to require an expedited declaratory judgment action before a measure may be barred from the ballot. It should restore a clear judicial review process available to the municipality, petition sponsors, or qualified voters. It should also narrow the bill so that an election is not prohibited merely because “any portion” of a measure may conflict with state law; instead, lawful and severable portions should be allowed to proceed where possible.

The bill should further require any adverse attorney general determination to be issued in writing, cite controlling state law, explain the specific conflict, and be publicly posted. A sunset provision and reporting requirement should be added so lawmakers can assess how often the review process is used, how often measures are blocked, whether litigation results, and whether the process is being applied consistently. These amendments would preserve the state’s interest in preventing unlawful local measures while reducing the risk of executive overreach, unnecessary interference with local petition rights, and long-term expansion of centralized ballot preclearance.