According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2929 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state or on local governments. The Texas Education Agency, the primary source agency consulted for this analysis, anticipates no material costs resulting from the implementation of the legislation.

The bill grants discretionary authority to game officials at school-sponsored athletic events to eject spectators without issuing prior warnings or requiring persistent misconduct. This clarification of authority does not require the establishment of new enforcement infrastructure, training programs, or administrative processes. As a result, there are no anticipated costs for schools, districts, or UIL operations associated with compliance or implementation.

In sum, the bill is expected to be revenue- and expenditure-neutral from both state and local perspectives, and no appropriations or budget adjustments are recommended based on its current form.

SB 2929 proposes to amend Section 37.105 of the Texas Education Code to allow referees and officials at school-sponsored or UIL-sanctioned athletic events to eject spectators without first issuing a verbal warning or requiring that the inappropriate behavior be repeated. While the bill’s stated intent is to enhance safety and order at public school sporting events, it raises serious concerns in terms of local governance, due process protections, government overreach, and the precedent it sets for unnecessary state involvement in routine school affairs.

At its core, the bill represents an unwarranted intrusion by the state into what should remain a matter of local school district discretion. Texas has long upheld the principle of local control in education, and this legislation undercuts that by establishing a uniform, top-down rule on how spectator behavior should be managed at events. Local school boards and the UIL already possess the authority and administrative flexibility to set and enforce conduct policies tailored to their communities. Legislating this specific procedural exemption at the state level erodes that autonomy and substitutes a one-size-fits-all mandate for what is best handled through local policy.

Moreover, the bill removes key procedural protections that previously required officials to issue a verbal warning and observe repeated inappropriate behavior before taking the significant step of ejecting a member of the public from a public event. Stripping away these safeguards opens the door to arbitrary or overly subjective enforcement. This expansion of quasi-governmental authority, without an accompanying framework for accountability or review, risks undermining trust in event management and violating basic due process expectations.

Importantly, while the fiscal note indicates no cost to taxpayers, the broader policy implication is that the state is extending its reach into increasingly granular areas of everyday life, regulating not just school curricula or funding but now sideline discipline at athletic events. This is not an appropriate use of legislative power. When state law begins to dictate how a local referee manages a crowd, it signals a troubling shift away from limited government toward regulatory micromanagement of public spaces.

The absence of any demonstrated, statewide failure justifying this change further undermines the bill’s rationale. If isolated incidents of referee harassment are a concern, those can and should be addressed through UIL policy reforms or local school board action, not through statutory mandates from Austin. A vote against SB 2929 is a vote to uphold local decision-making, safeguard individual liberties, and resist unnecessary expansion of state authority into community-level affairs.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2929.

• Individual Liberty: The bill weakens individual liberty by removing procedural safeguards that protect a person’s right to fair treatment at public events. Under current law, spectators must receive a verbal warning and display persistent inappropriate behavior before being ejected from a school-sponsored or UIL event. The bill removes these due process protections, allowing ejection based solely on a single official’s discretion. This increases the risk of arbitrary or uneven enforcement, especially in emotionally charged environments. In effect, it authorizes the restriction of public participation at taxpayer-funded events without the transparency or accountability that liberty demands.
• Personal Responsibility: On one hand, the bill encourages spectators to behave responsibly by reinforcing consequences for misconduct, which aligns with the principle of personal responsibility. However, the complete removal of procedural standards weakens the reciprocal responsibility of officials to act fairly and proportionately. Liberty-oriented governance should hold both individuals and state actors accountable. This bill places the entire burden on the individual, with no structural checks on the exercise of authority, creating an imbalance that undermines mutual responsibility.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill does not directly regulate commerce or private business, it may have downstream consequences on the local event economy. Overly aggressive enforcement by officials could deter families and community members from attending events, especially if ejections are seen as inconsistent or subjective. If attendance drops, this could impact concession revenue, vendor contracts, and community engagement with school events. While these effects may be limited, any erosion of community trust in public institutions can indirectly affect local enterprise and school support.
• Private Property Rights: The principle of private property rights is largely unaffected in a direct legal sense, since school events take place on publicly owned property governed by public institutions. That said, the people of Texas have a reasonable expectation of access to public property unless removed by a fair and consistent process. By lowering the threshold for ejection without clear standards, the bill arguably undermines the public's claim to access communal spaces governed by local, accountable institutions.
• Limited Government: Perhaps the most serious violation is to the principle of limited government. The bill represents a clear case of government overreach into local affairs, dictating procedural standards for event management that should be left to school districts and the UIL. Texas lawmakers often speak of the importance of subsidiarity, decisions being made at the lowest, most local level of governance. This bill does the opposite: it centralizes authority in the hands of the state and imposes a rigid rule across all districts, even where no problem exists. It also expands discretionary enforcement power without checks, which is fundamentally at odds with the principle of restrained, accountable government.

• HB 3369 (Same As)