According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HJR 34 would have no direct fiscal impact on the state budget beyond the standard cost of publishing the constitutional amendment. That publication cost is estimated at $191,689, which is a routine expense associated with placing constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot.

The proposed amendment itself does not enact a tax exemption but merely grants the Legislature the authority to do so through future enabling legislation. Because of this, there are no immediate revenue losses to the state or local governments from the resolution alone. Any real fiscal impact—particularly reduced property tax revenue—would arise from subsequent legislation that defines eligibility, scope, and implementation rules for the exemption.

The analysis also concludes that there is no anticipated fiscal implication for local governments at this stage. However, it should be noted that if future enabling legislation is passed and widely used by property owners in eligible counties, local taxing entities, such as school districts or counties, could experience a reduction in taxable property values, potentially affecting local budgets over time depending on the extent of participation and valuation shifts.

In summary, while HJR 34 does not itself carry significant fiscal implications, it lays the groundwork for future tax policy that could result in revenue reductions for local governments, contingent on legislative follow-through and taxpayer uptake.

HJR 34 proposes a constitutional amendment authorizing the Texas Legislature to create an ad valorem tax exemption specifically for the added market value of real property in counties bordering Mexico that results from the installation or construction of border security infrastructure. The purpose is to prevent landowners from being financially penalized through higher property taxes when they voluntarily support border security efforts through capital improvements such as fencing, surveillance structures, or barriers. The exemption is narrowly tailored: it applies only to the value added by such improvements, not to the property as a whole, and its implementation depends entirely on enabling legislation yet to be enacted.

This resolution aligns with several core liberty principles. It affirms private property rights by shielding voluntary improvements made in the public interest from triggering a tax burden. It supports limited government by refraining from creating new entitlements or regulatory mandates. It also protects individual liberty and voluntary cooperation by incentivizing, rather than compelling, landowners to engage in border security initiatives without fear of tax increases.

Importantly, this resolution does not expand the size or scope of government. It introduces no new agencies or regulations, nor does it mandate action by the Legislature. It also does not create a new spending obligation for the state, aside from the one-time cost of publishing the amendment, which is standard for all proposed constitutional changes and estimated at $191,689. Likewise, it imposes no new regulatory burdens on individuals or businesses. The fiscal note confirms that there is no immediate cost to local governments, and any revenue impact would arise only if the Legislature later adopts enabling statutes.

However, it is important to acknowledge valid concerns about the broader policy approach. Tax exemptions, even when well-intentioned and narrowly drawn, can erode the tax base and create unequal treatment among taxpayers. Property tax relief delivered through exemptions can inadvertently shift the burden to others who do not qualify, raising equity and transparency issues. Moreover, overuse of exemptions can complicate the tax system and obscure the path toward comprehensive reform.

While HJR 34 is modest and well-targeted, it underscores a larger need for uniform, broad-based property tax reforms that reduce rates or compression overall rather than carving out relief for specific use cases. This resolution should not be viewed as a substitute for such reform but rather as a narrowly tailored fix to a specific policy inequity affecting cooperative property owners in border regions.

In conclusion, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HJR 134 as it provides narrowly scoped protection to property owners without expanding government power or imposing new costs. At the same time, it should be accompanied by continued calls for restraint in using exemptions as a policy tool and a renewed commitment to systemic tax reform that treats all property owners equitably.

• Individual Liberty: This resolution protects the freedom of property owners along the Texas-Mexico border who choose to install or host border security infrastructure. Without this exemption, individuals could be discouraged from participating in such efforts due to the threat of increased property taxes. By removing that penalty, the bill safeguards an individual’s right to use their property in a way that supports public safety without triggering financial punishment. This promotes voluntary action and respects the autonomy of the landowner.
• Personal Responsibility: While the resolution doesn’t directly impose or encourage personal responsibility, it operates within a framework that respects it. Property owners are not mandated to take any specific action, but those who voluntarily choose to enhance border security infrastructure are not punished with higher taxes. This respects the principle that citizens should be free to act in the public interest without being penalized by government systems.
• Free Enterprise: By exempting the added value of security infrastructure from property taxation, the bill avoids creating a disincentive for investment in capital improvements. While it’s not directly aimed at business activity, the logic applies similarly, encouraging economic activity and private-sector solutions in border areas. This is in line with free enterprise values, which favor minimizing tax barriers to investment and innovation.
• Private Property Rights: This is where the bill is most aligned with liberty principles. One of the core tenets of property rights is that individuals should be free to improve their property without being punished for doing so. Taxing improvements—especially those made in coordination with public priorities like border security—can function as a de facto penalty. This resolution ensures that such improvements do not trigger an involuntary loss of property value via taxation, thereby reinforcing the right to control and use one’s property without coercive consequences.
• Limited Government: On its face, the resolution respects limited government by refraining from expanding state power or programs. It does not mandate state action or new spending. However, because it creates a new class of tax exemption, it does carve out a policy niche in the tax code. While this could be seen as an exception to neutral taxation, it is permissive rather than prescriptive and does not involve regulatory expansion or entitlements. That said, it should be noted that ongoing reliance on exemptions to address policy issues can lead to tax code complexity and undermine broader tax reform goals, raising concerns from a purist limited government perspective.

• HB 247 (Enabled by)