According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2363 is not expected to result in a significant fiscal impact to the State of Texas. The bill broadens the scope of the third-degree felony offense for unlawfully publishing a vote to include instances where an individual knowingly disseminates a voter’s ballot choices without obtaining effective consent from the voter. This represents a clarification and modest expansion of current law.

From a cost perspective, the Legislative Budget Board assumes that any associated fiscal impact on the state’s criminal justice system, including changes in prosecution patterns, court processing, or correctional system demands, will be minimal. The expectation is that few cases will arise from this offense and that any increase in workload for state agencies, such as the judiciary or correctional institutions, will be absorbable within current resources.

At the local level, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated either. Local governments may be involved in investigating or prosecuting violations, but the volume and complexity of these cases are not expected to be high. As such, counties and municipalities are unlikely to face substantial new costs for law enforcement, prosecution, public defense, or jail operations.

In summary, while SB 2363 introduces clearer legal boundaries and enforcement tools concerning voter privacy, the bill is crafted narrowly enough that it avoids triggering substantial state or local budgetary burdens.

SB 2363 responds directly to concerns about the integrity and privacy of the voting process, particularly following a high-profile incident during the 2024 Republican Primary, where a political figure's ballot was publicly disclosed without consent. The legislation criminalizes the act of knowingly publishing how another person voted without their "effective consent," elevating the offense to a third-degree felony. The bill seeks to uphold the principle of ballot secrecy, which is a foundational element of electoral freedom and trust in democratic institutions.

The bill aligns well with core liberty principles. It strengthens individual liberty by codifying protections for private voting decisions and ensures personal responsibility by placing clear legal limits on the dissemination of sensitive electoral information. It does not infringe upon free enterprise or private property, and it maintains limited government scope by avoiding the creation of new regulatory bodies or expansive oversight mechanisms.

The fiscal note from the Legislative Budget Board affirms that the bill would have no significant financial impact on the state or local governments, as the expected caseload from such offenses is presumed to be minimal. The bill also provides a balanced legal structure, including an affirmative defense for those who publish vote information in accordance with state law, protecting legitimate state functions such as investigations or election oversight.

Given its narrowly tailored scope, alignment with constitutional voting protections, and lack of fiscal or regulatory burden, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2363. It reinforces the expectations of privacy that voters reasonably hold, especially in an era of expanding digital exposure.

• Individual Liberty: This bill reinforces the right to ballot secrecy, which is fundamental to free and fair elections. By criminalizing the unauthorized publication of a person's vote without their effective consent, the legislation protects individuals from potential retaliation, coercion, or social pressure related to their political choices. The statutory definitions of “publish” and “effective consent” help clarify and enforce these protections in a digital era. This promotes personal autonomy in civic participation, a clear expansion of individual liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill imposes a duty of care on individuals, media outlets, and political actors to obtain valid consent before disclosing how someone voted. It deters irresponsible or malicious dissemination of voting information by establishing clear consequences for misconduct. The inclusion of an affirmative defense for disclosures required by state law reflects a careful balance between enforcement and fairness. This encourages accountability in how sensitive voting data is handled.
• Free Enterprise: The bill is narrowly tailored and does not regulate businesses or private economic activity beyond protecting voter information. While media organizations and political consultants may need to exercise more caution when handling voting data, the law does not impose operational or commercial restrictions on these entities. As such, it does not infringe on the principles of free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not alter ownership or control over property, physical or intellectual. Although it governs the publication of vote-related information, it does so through the lens of consent rather than restricting access to data held by private individuals or organizations. Therefore, it neither expands nor diminishes property rights.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the scope of an existing third-degree felony but does not create a new agency, bureaucracy, or regulatory scheme. Enforcement remains within the existing criminal justice framework. While critics may argue that increasing criminal penalties can empower the state, this measure narrowly targets a clearly defined harm and includes affirmative defenses to prevent overreach. Thus, it aligns with the principle of limited government by addressing a specific and well-justified threat to voter privacy.

• HB 3517 (Same As)