HCR 59 does not contain any mandates requiring state agencies to expend funds, nor does it authorize new programs, appropriations, or fees. As a symbolic concurrent resolution designating April as “Promise Month,” it does not create statutory law or require ongoing administrative enforcement or regulatory oversight. As such, its fiscal implications are minimal to nonexistent.

The designation under Section 391.004(d) of the Texas Government Code allows for nonbinding recognition for a 10-year period, but this carries no funding requirement unless the Legislature separately appropriates funds for promotional or ceremonial activities. The resolution also does not assign implementation responsibilities to any specific agency, nor does it require publication, education campaigns, or events that would incur state expenses.

However, if any agency or office were to voluntarily promote or acknowledge "Promise Month" in official communications, some minimal administrative costs (e.g., updating web content or issuing a statement) might occur. These costs would be absorbed within existing agency budgets and are unlikely to have a material impact on state or local finances.

In summary, HCR 59 is expected to have no significant fiscal impact on the state or on units of local government.

HCR 59 proposes the designation of April as “Promise Month” in Texas, highlighting themes from Christian scripture and asserting the influence of Biblical values on America’s founding. While the resolution is largely symbolic and carries no force of law, it nonetheless represents a state-level endorsement of specific religious content and worldview.

From a liberty principles standpoint, the resolution does not mandate government action, impose costs, restrict individual rights, or expand state power. It does not affect economic liberty, private property rights, or free enterprise, and it carries no direct fiscal burden. Therefore, it does not violate key tenets of limited government or personal responsibility in a material sense.

The resolution does not compel observance or participation by the public, nor does it restrict the beliefs or practices of others.

Given its nonbinding nature, lack of fiscal or legal mandates, and symbolic intent, Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on HCR 59.

• Individual Liberty: While the resolution expresses and honors Christian beliefs by designating April as “Promise Month,” it does not mandate religious observance or restrict individuals from practicing, or not practicing, any faith. It is a symbolic gesture rather than a coercive act. Although some may perceive the resolution as an endorsement of one religion, it does not infringe on anyone’s right to worship, speak freely, or abstain from religious engagement. As such, its impact on individual liberty is largely symbolic and does not amount to a direct violation.
• Personal Responsibility: The resolution does not shift responsibility from the individual to the state, nor does it attempt to regulate personal behavior or decision-making. It is purely ceremonial and makes no prescriptive demands of citizens. Therefore, it neither promotes nor detracts from the principle of personal responsibility.
• Free Enterprise: The resolution has no impact on economic freedom, business regulation, competition, or market activity. It does not affect the operation of businesses or the rights of individuals to engage in commerce. Thus, the principle of free enterprise is unaffected.
• Private Property Rights: There are no provisions in the resolution that address ownership, use, or control of private property. No takings, regulations, or infringements on property rights are proposed. Therefore, this principle remains unimpacted.
• Limited Government: Although the resolution imposes no legal mandates or budgetary obligations, it expands the symbolic role of government into the realm of religious expression. By formally recognizing a month based on Christian scripture, it risks using legislative authority in a domain better suited to private, community, or faith-based organizations. While not a significant expansion of governmental power, it does stretch the boundaries of the proper scope of legislative activity.