According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 565 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. While the bill introduces new responsibilities for the Secretary of State and the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), such as preparing and publishing cost estimates for proposed constitutional amendments, it is assumed that these duties can be managed with existing agency resources.

The report also finds no significant fiscal implication for local governments. This is consistent with the nature of the bill, which primarily affects state-level election and budgeting processes. The fiscal responsibilities imposed by the bill—such as cost assessment and ballot preparation—do not extend to local election officials in a way that would require additional local spending or staffing.

In summary, while the bill enhances fiscal transparency and introduces additional procedural requirements, it does so in a manner that is administratively feasible within current state agency operations. Thus, the measure is budget-neutral and should not strain public resources at either the state or local level.

HB 565 presents a meaningful and well-structured reform aimed at improving transparency in the constitutional amendment process in Texas. The bill addresses a key information gap faced by voters: the fiscal impact of proposed constitutional changes. Although fiscal notes for amendments and related legislation are available online, they are typically not accessible at polling places. This bill ensures that voters have immediate, ballot-level visibility into whether a proposed amendment would have a recurring or one-time cost to the state, as well as an estimate of that cost. By requiring this information to be presented clearly on the ballot, the bill empowers voters to make more informed choices based on both policy and financial consequences.

From a fiscal perspective, the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) found that the bill would not create a significant cost to the state or to local governments. The responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of State and the LBB—such as preparing, certifying, and displaying cost estimates—can be managed using existing resources. This suggests the bill achieves its policy goals without requiring additional public expenditures or infrastructure.

The substitute version of the bill adds specificity and institutional integrity to the original proposal by clearly assigning roles and procedures to the LBB and prescribing exact ballot language. This reflects a careful balance between the principles of limited government and informed democratic participation. It enhances accountability in constitutional budgeting decisions while respecting the voter’s right to understand how such measures could affect the state’s finances. Overall, HB 565 upholds multiple core liberty principles—individual liberty through informed consent, limited government through fiscal scrutiny, and personal responsibility through transparent governance—and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 565.

• Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual liberty by empowering voters with greater transparency and access to information. When casting a ballot on proposed constitutional amendments, voters often lack critical fiscal context that could influence their decision. By mandating that cost estimates—specifying whether the cost is one-time or recurring—be printed directly on the ballot, the legislation ensures individuals can make more informed, autonomous choices. This respects and strengthens the principle that democratic participation should be grounded in meaningful access to information.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill also promotes personal responsibility by requiring voters to confront the fiscal implications of their decisions at the ballot box. When proposed amendments have budgetary consequences—such as creating programs, committing state funds, or reducing revenue—those impacts are often hidden unless voters seek out fiscal notes on their own. This bill places that responsibility into context, fostering a more engaged and thoughtful electorate that weighs both policy intent and financial tradeoffs.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill does not directly affect private markets or business regulation, the indirect benefits of improved fiscal discipline could support a more stable economic environment in the long term. However, the bill’s focus is exclusively on ballot transparency rather than regulatory policy, so its alignment with free enterprise is neutral.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not interfere with or alter laws concerning land use, property ownership, or eminent domain. That said, by helping to control the potential for expansive state spending or unfunded constitutional mandates, it may indirectly protect taxpayers from future burdens that could erode property values or result in increased taxation.
• Limited Government: The bill supports the principle of limited government by increasing scrutiny of government spending proposals that are embedded in constitutional amendments. Voters are more likely to approve amendments when costs are not apparent; requiring a public, standardized cost disclosure could discourage financially unsustainable proposals and lead to more fiscally disciplined governance. It introduces an added layer of accountability for lawmakers and state agencies, curbing the ability to pass costly programs without transparent debate.

• SB 1192 (Same As)