According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 505 is projected to have a negative net fiscal impact of $1,151,323 to the Texas General Revenue Fund over the 2026–2027 biennium. The primary costs stem from the creation and administration of a new election audit process overseen by the Secretary of State (SOS). The bill does not appropriate funds directly but establishes the framework that would justify future appropriations.

The SOS anticipates the need for five additional full-time employees (FTEs) to carry out the audits: three Program Specialists, one Auditor, and one Attorney, alongside associated administrative and operational costs. The personnel costs are estimated at around $595,624 in fiscal year 2026, and $555,699 annually in subsequent years. These figures include salaries, benefits, and overhead. Additionally, the SOS projects technology setup costs of $39,925 in fiscal year 2026 for necessary hardware and software.

While the bill permits the levying of civil penalties and the recovery of those penalties by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), any such revenue is expected to be minimal and uncertain. The OAG and the Office of Court Administration do not foresee significant additional costs. However, local governments could face undetermined financial responsibilities, especially if a county is required to host a state-appointed conservator due to confirmed election violations.

Overall, the bill introduces modest but ongoing administrative expenses to the state and potential, though indeterminate, burdens on local election authorities.

SB 505 presents a targeted, structured approach to enhancing the transparency and integrity of Texas elections by establishing a formal process to address potential election irregularities. The bill creates Chapter 280 of the Election Code, allowing election participants—including candidates, political party chairs, election judges, and PAC leaders—to formally request explanations and documentation regarding perceived irregularities from local election officials. If the response is inadequate, the inquiry can be escalated to the Secretary of State (SOS), who may initiate an audit and, if warranted, appoint a conservator to oversee future elections in the affected county.

The author’s intent, as outlined in the bill analysis, is to offer a consistent administrative remedy to issues that might otherwise go unresolved unless escalated to a full election contest—a rare and often inaccessible route. This bill fills a meaningful accountability gap by allowing credible parties to request reviews without immediately invoking litigation. It also includes civil penalties and the ability to appoint a conservator when Election Code violations are substantiated and not remedied.

While the bill imposes a modest fiscal burden—approximately $1.15 million over the next biennium—for staffing and audit implementation, these costs are offset by the long-term value of maintaining public trust in elections. It also ensures that county governments bear the cost of conservatorship if violations are found, maintaining a principle of local accountability. From a liberty standpoint, it supports individual liberty and limited government by promoting transparency, structured oversight, and procedural fairness without expanding voter surveillance or overregulating the electoral process.

In summary, SB 505 offers a proportionate and liberty-aligned response to the demand for election accountability. Its focused scope, defined procedures, and balance of authority and responsibility, and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 505.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strengthens individual liberty by enhancing the transparency and accountability of the electoral process. By giving direct election participants—such as candidates, election judges, and party officials—a legal avenue to seek explanations for potential irregularities, it reinforces their right to a fair electoral environment. This measure helps ensure that voters' choices are accurately counted and reported, a cornerstone of democratic self-governance and individual liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill places the onus on individuals who were directly involved in an election to take action when they believe irregularities have occurred. It avoids opening the floodgates to speculative or bad-faith challenges by limiting who can initiate reviews, which promotes responsible civic engagement. The pathway it creates—from inquiry to possible audit—emphasizes process and diligence over sensationalism, embodying the principle of personal responsibility in a public role.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill does not directly affect the economy or private enterprise, it contributes to a more stable political environment, which indirectly benefits free enterprise. Confidence in fair elections supports the rule of law and minimizes political risk, which are foundational to a healthy business climate.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not regulate or impact the use, acquisition, or defense of private property. Therefore, its relationship to this principle is neutral.
• Limited Government: The bill enhances limited government by focusing oversight mechanisms on election officials and ensuring transparency without creating new voter surveillance systems or burdensome regulations. The Secretary of State's authority is expanded only insofar as to respond to verified issues brought by qualified individuals. The appointment of a conservator is a serious step, but one bounded in scope (limited to two federal cycles) and justified only after a confirmed legal violation and local inaction. Civil penalties and the publication of noncompliant counties further promote self-correction rather than indefinite state control.

• HB 3491 (Similar To)
• HB 968 (Similar To)
• HB 989 (Similar To)