According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HJR 110 are minimal overall, with the primary cost to the state stemming from the publication requirement associated with placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot. According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the only notable fiscal impact is the $191,689 expense for publishing the resolution statewide, as required by law. This cost is a routine part of any proposed constitutional amendment and is not considered substantial within the context of the state's overall budget​.

Beyond the publication expense, no other significant fiscal effects on state operations are anticipated. The Texas Ethics Commission, which oversees the filing of political funding reports and personal financial statements, has indicated that it does not expect the joint resolution to impose any major operational or financial burdens. This suggests that the agency's existing resources and processes are adequate to support compliance verification without the need for additional appropriations or staffing increases​.

Similarly, the resolution is not expected to create a financial burden for local governments. Because the proposed amendment concerns state-level eligibility requirements for certain public offices, and because enforcement and oversight remain with state agencies, counties and municipalities are unlikely to experience new costs or administrative duties as a result of this measure​.

In conclusion, the fiscal note confirms that HJR 110 would have no meaningful impact on ongoing state or local government operations beyond the one-time cost of publicizing the ballot proposition.

HJR 110 proposes a constitutional amendment to tighten eligibility criteria for several high-level public offices in Texas by incorporating existing statutory requirements for political transparency. Specifically, the resolution amends the Texas Constitution to require that individuals seeking to become a candidate for, be elected to, or be appointed to the offices of Senator, Representative, Governor, or various judicial positions—including Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court and district judges—must have filed all political funding reports and personal financial statements required by law. If a person has failed to timely file any such reports or statements, they would be considered ineligible under the amendment.

The amendment modifies several sections of the Texas Constitution, including Article III (Legislative Department), Article IV (Executive Department), and Article V (Judicial Department), standardizing the eligibility requirement across branches of government. This ensures a consistent expectation of financial disclosure and accountability for those who aspire to wield public power in Texas. Notably, the amendment does not change what must be filed or by when—those requirements remain governed by existing statutes—but it does elevate compliance to a constitutional condition of eligibility.

By proposing this constitutional amendment, the Legislature aims to reinforce the legal and ethical responsibilities of public officeholders and candidates. If approved by voters, the amendment would provide an enforcement mechanism to disqualify individuals who disregard the state’s financial disclosure laws.

The originally filed version of HJR 110 and the Committee Substitute both propose a constitutional amendment requiring candidates for certain elective public offices to have filed all political funding reports and personal financial statements as a condition of eligibility. However, the two versions differ in key respects related to the enforcement mechanism and timeline for compliance.

In the originally filed bill, the eligibility requirement is structured around a fixed deadline: the individual must file each required report or statement “before the 14th day after the date the report or statement was due.” This introduces a clear and specific grace period (14 days), providing a limited window for late compliance before ineligibility is triggered​.

By contrast, the Committee Substitute adopts a broader and more flexible framework. Instead of setting a 14-day grace period, it conditions eligibility on whether the person has become ineligible under general law due to noncompliance. This ties constitutional ineligibility to existing statutes governing when and how missed filings result in legal consequences. Essentially, this shifts authority to the Legislature to define ineligibility by statute rather than embedding a specific timeframe into the Constitution​.

In summary, the main difference lies in the enforcement timing: the original bill sets a firm 14-day post-deadline threshold, while the Committee Substitute defers to general law for defining when failure to file results in ineligibility. The substitute also includes stylistic and clarity-oriented updates to constitutional language. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HJR 110.

• Individual Liberty: At its core, individual liberty includes the freedom to participate in the political process, both as a voter and a candidate. This resolution curtails that freedom by making access to the ballot contingent on technical compliance with administrative filing rules. Even though those rules serve a valid purpose, using them as a constitutional gate to public office can disqualify individuals for reasons unrelated to character, competence, or public trust. This shifts decision-making from voters to bureaucracies, creating a risk of disenfranchisement through procedural enforcement.

• Personal Responsibility: On the surface, the resolution promotes personal responsibility by expecting candidates to follow laws regarding disclosure. Filing timely campaign finance and personal financial statements is a basic duty of transparency. However, the resolution doesn’t merely encourage responsibility—it weaponizes noncompliance as a disqualifier. This creates a punitive framework that fails to distinguish between willful concealment and good-faith error, particularly when those errors stem from inexperience or lack of resources. Responsibility should be expected, but the consequence should be proportionate.

• Free Enterprise: This bill does not regulate or burden economic activity directly. However, by potentially narrowing the field of viable candidates, it could indirectly affect the business environment if access to office becomes less competitive or more insular. A healthy democratic process fosters diverse representation, including those with entrepreneurial and outsider perspectives, and this measure may discourage such entrants.

• Private Property Rights: The resolution does not touch land use, ownership, or property-related liberties. Its impact on private property rights is effectively neutral.

• Limited Government: C.S.H.J.R. 110 represents an expansion of government authority in the electoral process. By elevating statutory compliance to a constitutional eligibility requirement, it embeds administrative enforcement into the core of democratic governance. This empowers government institutions—not voters—to determine who is allowed to serve. Rather than using the least restrictive means to ensure transparency, it adds an exclusionary and inflexible tool that removes voter discretion. This contradicts the spirit of limited government by prioritizing control over choice.