According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), there is no significant cost anticipated to the state for implementing the bill’s provisions. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), which is tasked with preparing the report on students with disabilities in higher education, is assumed to be capable of carrying out these duties within its current budget and using existing staff and resources.

The bill does not create any new programs, require permanent staffing changes, or establish recurring reporting obligations, which helps contain its fiscal impact. Its one-time reporting requirement, expiring in 2028, limits the long-term financial burden. Additionally, while institutions of higher education may need to supply data upon request, these duties are not expected to create significant new administrative costs or require additional local funding.

Likewise, no significant fiscal implications are projected for local governments or institutions. Public institutions are already subject to data reporting obligations, and the bill’s requirements are consistent with existing administrative processes. Therefore, the fiscal footprint of SB 769 is considered light and manageable across both state and local entities.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 769 based on concerns that the legislation, while narrow in scope today, sets a precedent for future state overreach into institutional autonomy and educational policy under the broad and often ambiguous framework of “equity.” Though the bill is framed as a one-time data-gathering effort, it encourages the expansion of state authority into an area already governed by robust federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Public institutions are already required to comply with these standards, and the mechanisms for ensuring accountability—through federal enforcement and civil litigation—are firmly in place. Adding a state-level reporting layer could be seen as unnecessary duplication rather than a legitimate exercise of state oversight.

From a liberty-first perspective, the bill raises concerns about the role of government. Rather than addressing a clearly defined policy failure, it mandates a study that could serve as the basis for future mandates or interventions that limit institutional discretion and individual responsibility. The framing of the bill—emphasizing disparities in enrollment and access—reflects an assumption that unequal outcomes inherently signal systemic failure and that it is the government’s role to correct such disparities. This equity-based rationale can quickly evolve from reporting to regulation, especially when driven by political pressure or advocacy campaigns based on the study's findings.

While the bill carries no significant fiscal cost and includes a sunset provision, those features do not eliminate the underlying issue: the state should be cautious about inserting itself into areas where its involvement is not clearly necessary or constitutionally grounded. Respecting limited government means resisting the impulse to investigate or fix every perceived imbalance, especially when existing legal frameworks already provide adequate remedies. As such, SB 769, though modest in appearance, represents a step in the wrong direction for those who prioritize constrained government and institutional self-governance.

• Individual Liberty: The bill’s stated goal is to identify barriers that prevent students with disabilities from enrolling in or succeeding at higher education institutions. In theory, this promotes individual liberty by seeking to ensure equal access to public institutions—especially for a population that is often underserved. However, the bill stops short of guaranteeing any new rights or removing current restrictions. Its effect on liberty is, therefore, more symbolic than practical at this stage. If this fact-finding becomes the basis for future mandates or policy interventions that treat liberty as secondary to outcome-based equity, it could ultimately erode individual liberty by limiting institutional flexibility and imposing one-size-fits-all requirements.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill subtly shifts the emphasis away from student agency and institutional accountability toward a government-centered approach to diagnosing and addressing disparities. While personal responsibility remains in place under current law (students must self-identify as needing accommodations, for example), this bill implies that unequal outcomes are the fault of institutional systems rather than individual choice, readiness, or initiative. By framing the issue in terms of systemic failure without clear evidence, the bill risks promoting a culture where government—not students or families—is expected to resolve every barrier or challenge.
• Free Enterprise: Because the bill targets higher education (largely public-sector) institutions and does not impose mandates on private or for-profit entities, it has minimal direct impact on free enterprise. However, the inclusion of private and independent colleges in the scope of the report—albeit on a voluntary basis—does raise a cautionary flag. Future legislative steps based on this report could create compliance burdens or accessibility mandates that affect private institutions, thereby restricting their ability to innovate or allocate resources independently.
• Private Property Rights: The bill allows the state to request—but not require—information from private or independent institutions of higher education. This preserves the autonomy of private actors and recognizes their right to decline state involvement. While this provision is properly limited in the current bill, any follow-up legislation using this report as justification could impose obligations on private property owners, including building retrofits or service mandates.
• Limited Government: This is the principle most impacted by the bill. Though the bill is narrow and time-limited, it invites broader state involvement into institutional affairs already governed by federal law. It suggests the state should assess and potentially address gaps in outcomes—rather than focusing solely on whether institutions are fulfilling their legal duties. This represents a slippery slope toward expanding state regulatory power in higher education under the pretense of equity. Even without current mandates, the infrastructure laid by this bill (data collection, analysis, narrative framing) can easily be used to justify future state action that undermines institutional self-governance and inflates the role of government in education.

• HB 271 (Same As)