According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 13 are expected to be minimal at the state level but potentially more burdensome at the local level. According to the Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note, there is no significant fiscal impact anticipated for the state. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Library and Archives Commission are expected to absorb any costs associated with implementing the bill using existing resources.

However, the bill imposes several new administrative and operational requirements on local school districts, which could result in additional expenses. These include the costs of notifying parents about their rights to control access to school library materials, as well as developing and maintaining systems to provide real-time updates to parents when their child checks out or uses library content. This could necessitate upgrades to digital systems or the implementation of new technology platforms, as well as costs related to staff training and additional administrative personnel.

Districts may also incur costs related to the formation and operation of Local School Library Advisory Councils. These councils must meet regularly, provide public notices, record and publish meeting minutes and media, and review library material acquisition and challenges. While the bill does not include a direct funding mechanism to support these new mandates, districts are expected to bear the responsibility of compliance, which may strain smaller or under-resourced districts more heavily. In summary, the fiscal burden of SB 13 is primarily localized, with implementation costs likely varying based on district size, infrastructure, and existing parental engagement systems.

While we unequivocally support efforts to protect children from exposure to obscene or sexually explicit materials in public school libraries, SB 13—as currently drafted—falls short of accomplishing this goal in a way that is philosophically consistent, constitutionally sound, and structurally enforceable.

SB 13 takes meaningful steps toward empowering parents, improving transparency, and involving communities in school library oversight. These include expanding parental access to catalogs and records, enabling residents to challenge inappropriate materials, and requiring public notice and documentation under the Open Meetings Act. These provisions mark real progress.

However, the bill still relies too heavily on decentralized local control and vague statutory definitions, such as "indecent" or "pervasively vulgar"—which are open to subjective interpretation. Without clear, objective content standards or meaningful enforcement tools, districts may continue to avoid accountability, as seen in the recent Lovejoy ISD case. The lack of state-level oversight, civil penalties, or injunctive relief further undermines the bill’s effectiveness.

We recommend targeted amendments to:

• Replace subjective content language with constitutionally rooted definitions (e.g., those used in HB 4198).
• Remove references to "prevailing community standards," which vary widely and invite legal uncertainty.
• Incorporate state-level enforcement mechanisms, such as civil penalties or injunctive relief (as in HB 3225 or SB 12).
• Ensure review decisions are informed by objective criteria, not politicized local councils.

SB 13 contains elements worth building upon, but without these critical reforms, it risks enabling inconsistent enforcement, infringing on constitutionally protected access to information, and overburdening schools with procedural complexity. We stand ready to support strong, enforceable legislation to protect Texas children, but it must be done in a way that respects both the Constitution and the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 13, unless amended as described above.

• Individual Liberty: The bill expands parental rights over their child's access to library materials and increases transparency in public education, both of which align with individual liberty in theory. However, the bill introduces vague and subjective definitions of “indecent content,” “profane content,” and “pervasively vulgar” material, which risks infringing on students' First Amendment rights. These broad standards could lead to the removal or restriction of constitutionally protected content. The opt-out mechanisms for individual parents are appropriate, but preemptively restricting student access to challenged materials before a final decision is rendered sets a troubling precedent.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility by empowering parents to determine what materials their children may access, and by encouraging school districts to actively involve their communities in the oversight of library collections. The requirement for local advisory councils (if petitioned) and opt-out procedures acknowledges the role of families in making educational decisions. It also places the burden on school boards to publicly vet acquisitions, signaling a shift toward proactive stewardship of public resources.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly regulate private actors, such as publishers or booksellers, but it may indirectly affect the education publishing and distribution marketplace. If vendors begin labeling materials as “sexually explicit” based on ambiguous or politically charged criteria to comply with the bill's mandates, it could lead to a chilling effect on the publication and distribution of certain genres or perspectives in Texas school markets. The bill’s structure may pressure publishers to self-censor or avoid offering certain titles to school districts.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not regulate private property, nor does it restrict the possession or use of materials outside of school settings. All regulatory provisions are limited to public, taxpayer-funded institutions (public school libraries). The focus on public collections rather than private ownership ensures that property rights are not directly infringed.
• Limited Government: Although the bill’s intent is to decentralize decision-making and elevate parental control, it paradoxically expands government authority in ways that conflict with the principle of limited government. It mandates specific bureaucratic structures (advisory councils), public review timelines, and meeting procedures. It imposes administrative burdens on school districts without providing state funding or streamlined implementation tools. Critically, it lacks state-level enforcement, yet creates a framework for preemptively restricting access to materials based on unresolved challenges, potentially inviting legal overreach and censorship concerns.