According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 11 cannot be determined because the costs depend on how many school districts and open-enrollment charter schools choose to adopt the optional prayer policy and subsequently request legal representation from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). Since participation by school districts is discretionary, the extent of state expenditures is uncertain and cannot be reliably estimated at this time.

The bill could result in state costs if participating school districts or charter schools become involved in litigation arising from the adoption of a prayer policy and request representation from the attorney general. Under the bill, if the OAG provides that representation, the state would be responsible for litigation-related expenses, including legal costs, judgments, and settlements. Because the number and nature of potential legal challenges are unknown, the LBB concluded that these costs are indeterminate.

For local governments, the LBB notes that any school district or charter school choosing to implement the policy would incur costs associated with providing an appropriate space for the period of prayer. However, if litigation arises and the school elects to be represented by the attorney general, the state, not the local entity, would bear the associated legal expenses, costs, judgments, or settlements.

Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on SB 11. The bill seeks to expand protections for voluntary religious expression in public schools by authorizing school districts and eligible charter schools to establish an optional period for prayer and reading of the Bible or another religious text. The bill incorporates several safeguards intended to align with recent First Amendment jurisprudence, including requiring affirmative opt-in consent from parents, guardians, and employees, prohibiting participation by non-consenting individuals, and ensuring that the period does not replace instructional time. It also requires the attorney general to provide implementation guidance and, upon request, defend participating school districts in related litigation.

The legislation advances the principle of voluntary religious exercise by creating a framework intended to protect participation while minimizing coercion. At the same time, it introduces new procedural requirements, including mandatory consent forms, liability waivers, school board votes, and attorney general oversight. These provisions reflect an effort to reduce constitutional risk but also expand the administrative role of state and local government in overseeing and defending implementation of the policy. The bill's fiscal implications are likewise uncertain, as the LBB concluded that state costs cannot be determined because they depend on how many school districts adopt the policy and request legal representation in future litigation.

Taken together, these competing considerations support a NEUTRAL position. SB 11 promotes voluntary religious liberty in public schools without mandating participation, but it also creates new administrative responsibilities and potential taxpayer exposure through state-funded legal defense and litigation costs. While the bill attempts to balance constitutional protections for both participants and nonparticipants, its long-term legal and fiscal consequences remain uncertain, making neither clear support nor clear opposition warranted under a limited-government framework.

• Senate Committee on Education K-16: 10Y/1N
• House Committee on State Affairs: 10Y/3N (2 Absent)

• HB 1425 (Similar To)