According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2633 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state budget. The bill authorizes certain municipalities to hold local option elections concerning the sale of alcoholic beverages and to adopt zoning regulations over alcohol-related premises. However, any administrative or operational costs associated with implementing these provisions are assumed to be minimal and absorbable within existing agency resources.

Similarly, the bill is not projected to create significant fiscal implications for local governments. Although the bill grants municipalities expanded authority to regulate alcohol sales and related land use, the potential for increased administrative costs (such as conducting elections or managing zoning changes) is considered manageable under their current capacities. The local option nature of the bill ensures that any actions taken are discretionary and subject to the political and economic priorities of each municipality.

The analysis by the Comptroller of Public Accounts, included in the source agency review, aligns with this assessment. Thus, SB 2633 appears fiscally neutral, neither imposing a burden nor generating significant new revenue at either the state or local level.

SB 2633 seeks to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Code to grant specific municipalities, including those like Garland, Texas—the authority to hold local option elections on alcohol sales and to adopt zoning and land use regulations for premises selling alcoholic beverages within designated zones. This targeted authority is intended to allow such municipalities to modernize outdated alcohol restrictions, attract commercial development, and tailor alcohol-related regulations to perceived local needs.

While the stated intent of the bill is to enhance local control and promote economic flexibility, the mechanism it uses introduces significant concerns that undermine core principles of equal treatment, private property rights, and limited government. Unlike the traditional process for local option elections in Texas, where elections are conducted within established political subdivisions such as entire cities, counties, or justice of the peace precincts, this bill enables municipalities to carve out specific “zones” for regulation. These zones are not defined by existing political boundaries, but instead are left to the discretion of local governing bodies, which could lead to arbitrary, selective, or politically influenced regulatory schemes.

This zoning authority allows local officials, not voters, to determine where alcohol can be sold and where restrictions apply, even after a successful local option election. That undermines the democratic nature of the election process and introduces the potential for unequal treatment of similarly situated property owners and businesses. It also breaks with long-established norms in Texas law that tie alcohol policy changes to clear, voter-defined political areas. No other local jurisdiction in Texas currently has the authority to initiate such zoning-based alcohol regulation independent of a broader local option election within an entire political subdivision.

Furthermore, if the bill were amended to remove the zoning provisions—its central feature—it would be rendered effectively unnecessary. The ability to hold a local option election already exists under current Texas law, and jurisdictions like Garland could pursue this through the standard petition and election process defined in Chapter 501 of the Election Code, assuming they meet the required thresholds. As such, the only truly new power granted by this bill is the authority to apply and enforce alcohol policy differently within customized local zones.

Given that the core innovation of the bill directly conflicts with principles of limited government, equal application of law, and protection of property rights—and that amending the bill to remove these concerns would effectively eliminate its substantive impact—Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO. The structure of the bill invites overreach, sets a problematic precedent, and is neither necessary nor aligned with the established and equitable framework for regulating alcohol sales in Texas.

• Individual Liberty: While the bill appears to support local choice by allowing elections on alcohol sales, it ultimately undermines individual liberty by permitting targeted regulation of lawful behavior based on location. The new authority to impose zoning-based restrictions on alcohol-selling businesses allows municipal governments to treat individuals and businesses unequally depending on arbitrary boundaries. This means a lawful business or customer in one part of town could be burdened with regulations not applied to others, undermining the notion that individuals should be treated equally under the law.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill modestly supports this principle by allowing voters to decide through local option elections whether alcohol should be sold in their community. That aligns with the idea that individuals and communities should take responsibility for their standards and public policies. However, the inclusion of government-imposed zoning rules after the election dilutes this empowerment by shifting decision-making from voters to city officials, reducing direct democratic accountability.
• Free Enterprise: Free enterprise thrives when businesses can operate under a consistent and predictable legal framework. The bill creates a localized, fragmented regulatory environment where alcohol-related businesses could face unique restrictions depending on what zone they fall into. This discourages investment, creates an uneven playing field, and increases compliance costs—all of which run counter to the principle of open, competitive markets. Moreover, nothing in the bill requires uniform standards across zones, allowing for the possibility of favoritism or selective enforcement.
• Private Property Rights: The bill authorizes municipalities to impose special land-use restrictions on properties that sell alcohol within designated zones. This could significantly reduce the rights of property owners to use their land for otherwise legal purposes, especially if such restrictions are applied discriminatorily or arbitrarily. For example, a restaurant in one zone might be prohibited from serving alcohol, while one across the street could be permitted—based purely on zoning decisions made by the local government, not by voters. This undermines one of the most basic protections of liberty: the right to use and enjoy one’s property without unjust interference.
• Limited Government: Perhaps most significantly, the bill expands the regulatory power of local governments beyond what is currently allowed anywhere else in Texas. While local option elections are already permitted, this bill goes a step further by empowering city councils to define and regulate customized alcohol zones. This is a novel and expansive grant of authority, not rooted in uniform legal principles, and invites future expansions of municipal power into other areas of commerce. It effectively delegates significant control to unelected bureaucrats or political majorities to regulate minority business rights, violating the core principle of restrained and constitutional government.

• HB 3085 (Similar To)