According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 2713 are minimal. The analysis concludes that there would be no significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. Specifically, it is assumed that any costs associated with implementing or responding to the provisions of the bill, such as court administration related to the newly created private cause of action, could be absorbed by existing resources within state agencies, including the Office of Court Administration.

Additionally, the fiscal note anticipates no significant fiscal impact on local governments. This suggests that while individuals may bring civil suits under the new law, the volume or complexity of such litigation is not expected to impose a substantial burden on municipal or county-level court systems or legal infrastructure. In effect, the bill's mechanism for enforcement—relying on private parties to initiate action rather than requiring state enforcement—helps mitigate potential public expenditures.

This assessment aligns with the bill’s design, which avoids the creation of new regulatory bodies or administrative oversight mechanisms, instead relying on the judiciary to resolve disputes through standard civil litigation channels. As such, SB 2713’s fiscal footprint is expected to be negligible across both state and local levels.

SB 2713 is a narrowly tailored measure designed to safeguard individual liberty and protect First Amendment rights within the context of professional and trade associations. The bill responds to recent concerns that individuals in industries like real estate, finance, and healthcare have been denied access to essential professional tools or services because of their publicly expressed political or social viewpoints. These denials—especially when they affect platforms like Multiple Listing Services—can materially impede a person’s ability to earn a living, raising legitimate concerns about ideological gatekeeping in the private sector.

The bill provides a remedy through the courts rather than through new bureaucracies, consistent with limited government principles. It enables individuals to pursue a private cause of action if they believe they’ve been wrongfully denied participation in a professional association based on protected characteristics or constitutionally protected speech or assembly. This design ensures that any potential costs to the state or local governments are negligible, as confirmed in the fiscal note.

Importantly, the bill also respects the autonomy of associations by not prohibiting them from enforcing professional standards of conduct, only from punishing constitutionally protected speech or membership based on personal identity. This distinction preserves the integrity of professional standards while ensuring those standards are not used as a pretext for ideological exclusion. It reinforces the principle that professional advancement should be determined by merit and qualifications, not viewpoint conformity or group identity.

Given its alignment with liberty principles, minimal fiscal impact, and responsiveness to documented real-world concerns, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2713. It strengthens individual liberty, promotes fairness in access to economic opportunity, and avoids unnecessary expansion of government authority.

• Individual Liberty: The bill is fundamentally rooted in protecting individual rights, especially the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly. By preventing professional or trade associations from denying membership or services based on someone’s race, religion, sex, or constitutionally protected expression, the bill ensures individuals are not punished for holding or voicing unpopular views. This protects Texans’ ability to fully participate in professional life without ideological coercion, directly reinforcing the state's constitutional guarantees of personal freedom and equal protection (Tex. Const. Art. I, §§ 3, 8).
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill doesn't directly address or impose personal responsibility, it indirectly supports it by reinforcing the idea that individuals should be judged on professional merit, not beliefs. It also encourages responsible behavior by associations, holding them accountable for unjust exclusion.
• Free Enterprise: Access to professional associations often serves as a prerequisite for participation in certain industries. Denial of such access on discriminatory or ideological grounds undermines a fair and competitive market. The bill ensures that participation in the workforce and economy is not contingent on political or social conformity, thereby promoting a merit-based, open, free enterprise system. This protection reduces barriers to entry and supports economic liberty.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does constrain certain associational rights of private professional groups, but only insofar as they function in quasi-public roles, such as controlling access to industry credentials or platforms essential for work. It does not interfere with general internal operations or voluntary conduct, making the intrusion minimal and targeted only to protect fundamental rights.
• Limited Government: Rather than expanding regulatory bureaucracy, the bill provides a private cause of action, empowering individuals to seek redress in civil court. There are no new state agencies or enforcement regimes created. Courts already handle discrimination and breach-of-contract cases; thus, the remedy is incorporated into the existing legal framework, consistent with the principle of limited government intervention.