According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 801 is expected to have no significant fiscal impact on the state. It is anticipated that any administrative or implementation costs associated with the bill can be absorbed by state agencies using existing resources. This includes the cost of developing verification processes for homeless status and adopting rules through the Health and Human Services Commission as required under the bill.

However, the fiscal implications for local governments are more uncertain. Local entities, particularly county clerks and local registrars who issue birth records, may experience a negative fiscal impact due to the mandated waiver of fees for homeless individuals. Since these entities often rely on such fees as a source of revenue to offset operational costs, the removal of these fees may result in unreimbursed expenditures. The Legislative Budget Board notes that the exact local fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time, as it would depend on the volume of requests and local implementation practices.

In summary, while the bill appears fiscally neutral at the state level, it may impose modest but indeterminate costs on local government offices responsible for vital records issuance.

SB 801 proposes that a certified copy of a birth certificate be provided free of charge to individuals who are verified as homeless. It directs the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to adopt rules to verify homeless status and outlines that individuals would not be required to provide a physical address. The bill aims to assist homeless individuals in accessing essential identification documents that are often necessary for employment, healthcare, housing, and social services.

While the bill is well-intentioned and addresses a real barrier for a vulnerable population, it represents an incremental expansion of government services by selectively waiving statutory fees based on personal circumstance. The policy introduces preferential treatment, setting a precedent for carving out exemptions for one group, which undermines the principle of equal application of laws and fees. Fee waivers based on class-based distinctions—even for noble purposes—erode the fairness and consistency of public administration. If the cost of a birth certificate is considered a barrier for some, the proper course may be to reevaluate the fee for all Texans, not just a subset.

Additionally, while the fiscal note indicates no significant cost to the state, local governments that administer these records may experience reduced revenue, and the bill authorizes additional rulemaking and verification infrastructure within HHSC. These factors, while modest, add administrative complexity and slightly broaden the regulatory role of the state. For those who believe government services should remain narrow, evenly applied, and fiscally neutral, this bill crosses a line, however small, that should be guarded carefully.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 801.

• Individual Liberty: On the surface, the bill appears to support individual liberty by helping homeless individuals access legal identity documents. Birth certificates are essential for reentry into civil society, and the bill removes practical barriers. However, the bill does so by granting a special exemption to one class of individuals, rather than expanding liberty universally. By privileging one group over others who may face different but still significant hardships, the bill selectively applies liberty, which may conflict with the principle of equal treatment under the law.
• Personal Responsibility: While proponents argue the bill empowers individuals to improve their circumstances, it also removes a cost-based responsibility that every other Texan is required to meet when obtaining a birth certificate. This selective fee waiver undermines the ethic of personal responsibility, signaling that the government will adjust costs based on subjective classifications. A consistent personal responsibility framework maintains that all adults, regardless of condition, share equal duties when interfacing with public services.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not interfere with the private sector, business regulation, or market function. However, by waiving fees for one group, it may distort the perceived value of public services over time, potentially affecting expectations around what should or should not be "free" from the government. The connection is indirect, but ideologically relevant to those who believe cost recovery and uniformity underpin a healthy interaction between citizens and the state.
• Private Property Rights: There is no infringement on private property or individual ownership rights in this bill. It neither regulates land use nor involves eminent domain or property claims. Neutral.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill raises the greatest concern. Although modest in scope, the bill expands the administrative role of HHSC by requiring new rulemaking and verification systems, carves out a new class-based exemption for a public service without reducing the scope of service for anyone else, opens the door to future expansions—other groups could soon seek similar waivers, creating a piecemeal welfare mechanism rather than a lean and universal government model. From a limited-government standpoint, even small, well-meaning expansions should be viewed skeptically if they are not applied equitably and do not reduce overall government scope.

• HB 510 (Same As)