According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 986 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The proposed changes—including the creation of an expedited response process under the Public Information Act and the ability for the Attorney General to levy fines for bad faith information request practices—are assumed to be implementable within the existing budget and resources of state agencies such as the Office of the Attorney General and the Comptroller of Public Accounts.

While the bill authorizes the Attorney General to collect penalties (a $1,000 charge for a bad faith request and $500 per business day until compliance), these new revenue streams are projected to be minimal and not significant enough to alter state budget forecasts. Similarly, any administrative costs associated with enforcing the new procedures, including managing appeals and maintaining training certifications, are expected to be absorbed using current resources.

For local governments, SB 986 also does not carry a significant fiscal implication. Although the bill introduces new responsibilities, such as adhering to the expedited process and certifying personnel, these are assumed to be manageable without requiring additional funding or placing undue financial burden on local entities

SB 986 proposes significant changes to the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA), with the stated intent of streamlining and improving the public records process for governmental bodies. However, while there are some meritorious components in the bill, particularly the provisions penalizing bad faith conduct and requiring clarity in redaction practices, the overall structure of the bill represents a substantial and concerning departure from long-standing transparency safeguards that have defined the TPIA for over 50 years.

The most problematic element is the creation of Subchapter K, which authorizes certain governmental bodies to withhold information without first seeking an Attorney General (AG) decision, provided they follow a new “expedited response” process and undergo certification. This reverses a fundamental principle of the TPIA: that the burden to justify withholding information rests with the government, not the public. Under SB 986, the burden shifts to individual requestors, who must initiate and navigate a new and potentially complex appeals process to obtain records that might have otherwise been released under the current system. While the AG retains authority to review appeals and revoke misuse of Subchapter K, these checks occur only after a requestor has taken significant action to challenge a denial.

This structural shift risks undermining the accessibility and transparency that the TPIA is meant to ensure. Many members of the public, including journalists, researchers, and everyday citizens, may be discouraged from pursuing appeals due to time constraints, lack of legal knowledge, or resource limitations. Consequently, fewer improper withholdings may be challenged, and more information may remain unnecessarily out of public view. While the bill includes training requirements for governmental entities and mandates procedural disclosures, those internal safeguards are no substitute for independent oversight by the Attorney General at the initial stage of withholding decisions.

Moreover, although the bill is labeled an “expedited response” measure, the appeals process it sets up is not inherently faster or simpler for requestors. In fact, it could lead to delays as disputes over withheld information are routed through a new bureaucratic track. And while penalties for bad faith AG requests and requirements to release clearly marked redacted materials are helpful reforms, they could be passed as standalone legislation without compromising the broader transparency framework.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 986 unless amended as described below. The Legislature should preserve the longstanding principle that governmental bodies must justify withholding public records through an independent AG review.

SB 986 should be amended to:

• Remove Subchapter K or make AG review mandatory for any withheld information.
• Retain and strengthen penalties for bad faith AG requests;
• Require agencies to release non-exempt portions of records with clear annotations;
• Provide additional training and support for public information officers without compromising the presumption of openness.

These changes would preserve the bill’s useful reforms while avoiding a fundamental shift in the TPIA that risks reducing transparency, increasing procedural burdens for citizens, and eroding public trust.

• Individual Liberty: The core concern with the bill is its shift in burden from the government to the citizen. Under the existing Public Information Act, the government must justify withholding records by obtaining an Attorney General's opinion. The bill allows certified agencies to withhold information on their own initiative, requiring the individual requestor to appeal. This not only complicates the process for citizens, especially those without legal knowledge or resources, but also creates a chilling effect: many will simply give up rather than navigate a confusing appeals system. As a result, access to information—an essential check on government power—is weakened, and the principle of individual liberty is harmed.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill ostensibly promotes responsibility by requiring agencies to undergo training and face penalties for bad-faith actions, in practice, it undermines personal responsibility by excusing initial government transparency obligations. The bill removes the proactive requirement for the agency to justify its redactions to a neutral arbiter (the AG) and instead places the onus on citizens to take initiative after a denial. This diminishes the government's duty to be transparent by default and leaves public servants less accountable unless challenged.
• Free Enterprise: Though the bill does not impose direct regulations on businesses, it does have a negative indirect impact on journalists, watchdog groups, and private-sector entities that rely on prompt access to public records (e.g., for due diligence, transparency in procurement, or media investigations). Slower, more cumbersome access and increased administrative friction make it harder for these actors to obtain timely information, especially if they must mount formal appeals. The barriers to access could chill investigations or discourage legitimate scrutiny of government actions—an important ingredient in maintaining a healthy, free enterprise environment.
• Private Property Rights: The bill explicitly exempts information involving privacy or property interests under Section 552.305 from the expedited withholding process. These sensitive requests must still go through traditional AG review. Because of this carve-out, private property rights are not directly affected, and their existing procedural protections remain intact. This principle is therefore neutral under the bill as written.
• Limited Government: Although the bill reduces the number of AG opinions and decentralizes decision-making, it paradoxically expands government discretion without sufficient oversight. By allowing agencies to unilaterally decide what to withhold, the bill reduces external checks and opens the door to abuse, error, or inconsistent application of the law. While the bill includes revocation mechanisms and penalty provisions, these are reactive, not proactive. The foundational assumption of limited government is that power should be constrained and constantly checked. The bill undermines that by removing a critical layer of independent review, and thus must be considered a net negative to the principle.