SJR 3 continues to represent a substantial and permanent expansion of state government by constitutionally mandating the creation and funding of a new state-managed medical research institute. While the resolution’s scope has been broadened to include Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease in addition to dementia, this expansion intensifies concerns about governmental overreach and fiscal entrenchment. The measure would lock $3 billion in taxpayer funds into a dedicated fund, with up to $300 million available annually for research, infrastructure, and operations—thereby removing legislative discretion and tying the hands of future lawmakers. These funds would be unavailable for other pressing state needs such as infrastructure improvements, disaster preparedness, education, or tax relief.
The principle of limited government is undermined by this proposal, as the state assumes an open-ended role in medical research, a domain where private institutions, universities, and philanthropic organizations have long been successful. Texas is already home to some of the world’s leading medical research centers—including MD Anderson and UT Southwestern—that have achieved breakthroughs without the need for constitutionally dedicated funding streams. Rather than duplicating these efforts with a government-run research entity, the state should focus on facilitating private innovation through streamlined regulation and competitive grant opportunities.
The constitutional amendment’s inflexibility is a key concern. Once enacted, the $3 billion transfer and $300 million annual appropriation cap will be locked into the Texas Constitution. Unlike general appropriations, which can be adjusted annually based on economic or policy shifts, a constitutional funding mechanism is nearly impossible to revise without returning to the voters. The resolution provides no clear mechanism to ensure fiscal accountability or measurable outcomes, and any research returns, such as patents or licensing royalties, remain speculative and outside the scope of the legislation. Moreover, the funding does not count against the state’s constitutional spending limit, creating a potential incentive for future off-budget expansions of state programs.
By embedding this expanded initiative into the state constitution, SJR 3 sets a precedent for taxpayer-funded, disease-specific institutions to seek permanent constitutional entrenchment. This model opens the door to a proliferation of similar amendments, each with its own earmarked fund, further fragmenting the budget and reducing transparency and flexibility in state finance.
For these reasons, Texas Policy Research continues to recommend that lawmakers vote NO on SJR 3. Lawmakers should instead support policies that empower the private sector, promote competitive grants through normal appropriations, and uphold the constitutional principle that state government should remain limited in scope and nimble in function. Rejecting this amendment preserves legislative flexibility and prioritizes fiscal prudence and free-market innovation.
- Individual Liberty: The resolution does not directly infringe on individual rights or personal freedoms. However, by establishing a state-run research institute with a broad health mandate, it opens the door for future regulatory entanglements or state influence over private medical practices and innovation pathways. While the aim is disease prevention and treatment, embedding health initiatives in the constitution sets a precedent for state-led health policy at the expense of personal choice and market-driven solutions.
- Personal Responsibility: The resolution shifts responsibility for major public health research efforts from individuals, philanthropic institutions, and the private sector to the government. Rather than incentivizing private investment or grassroots medical philanthropy, it institutionalizes reliance on the state to drive scientific discovery and public health strategy. This can reduce the sense of ownership and accountability within communities, research institutions, and healthcare providers, undermining the ethic of self-determination and voluntary cooperation.
- Free Enterprise: By entering into direct competition with private-sector research institutions and philanthropically funded organizations, the state disrupts the incentive structures of the biomedical innovation market. The state-run institute, backed by billions in guaranteed public funds, may crowd out private investment and distort the allocation of resources by introducing non-market forces into the research landscape. Additionally, the matching-funds requirement (50% of grant value) may be seen as a concession to private involvement, but in practice, large institutional players may benefit disproportionately, while smaller innovators and entrepreneurs are left at a disadvantage.
- Private Property Rights: There is no immediate threat to private property rights within the language of the resolution. However, since public funds may be used for the construction, renovation, or purchase of research facilities, the potential exists for future property-related disputes, including eminent domain claims. This concern is currently speculative but should not be dismissed if the institute expands its physical footprint over time.
- Limited Government: This resolution is a direct violation of the principle of limited government. It creates a new, constitutionally enshrined government entity—the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. It permanently dedicates $3 billion in taxpayer funds and allows for up to $300 million in annual appropriations, insulated from the General Revenue Fund and exempt from the state’s spending limit. These funding mechanisms lock in long-term state spending, bypassing the normal legislative appropriations process and future policy debates. Future legislatures would need a constitutional amendment and another statewide election to revise or repurpose this commitment, severely restricting policy flexibility. This measure sets a dangerous precedent by embedding ongoing health policy in the Texas Constitution—a trend inconsistent with a minimalist, accountable state framework.
