Overall Vote Recommendation

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

In Layman's Terms

SJR 3 proposes a constitutional amendment creating the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, backed by a $3 billion initial state investment and up to $300 million annually for dementia and related disease research. If approved by voters, it would establish a permanent, constitutionally dedicated fund to support research, treatment, and prevention efforts.

Digest

SJR 3 proposes a constitutional amendment to establish the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT), a state-managed entity charged with advancing research, treatment, and prevention efforts for a broad range of neurodegenerative diseases. The proposed amendment creates the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund, a special fund outside the state’s General Revenue Fund. It mandates an initial transfer of $3 billion from general revenue on January 1, 2026, and permits annual appropriations up to $300 million to support the institute’s work. This funding would be used to provide grants for scientific research, develop therapies, and support infrastructure and prevention programs targeting dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders.

The institute would be authorized to award grants to Texas-based universities, research institutions, private organizations, and collaborative partnerships involved in biomedical research and clinical studies. Grant funding could support both basic and translational research efforts as well as the construction or renovation of facilities associated with neurodegenerative disease research. A matching funds requirement mandates that recipients contribute at least 50% of the value of each grant in private or institutional funds. Governance provisions include six-year terms for institute leadership and authority to establish oversight mechanisms for the appropriate use of funds.

By embedding this institute and fund into the Texas Constitution, the amendment would effectively dedicate long-term state resources to an expanded state role in medical research. This would reduce legislative flexibility in reallocating funds in future budget cycles. The proposed constitutional amendment will appear on the November 4, 2025, general election ballot and requires voter approval to take effect.

Author (1)

Joan Huffman

Co-Author (10)

Carol Alvarado Brian Birdwell Cesar Blanco Juan Hinojosa Nathan Johnson Jose Menendez Borris Miles Angela Paxton Royce West Judith Zaffirini

Sponsor (5)

Tom Craddick Greg Bonnen Todd Hunter Senfronia Thompson Pat Curry

Co-Sponsor (119)

Alma Allen Rafael Anchia Trent Ashby Jeffrey Barry Cecil Bell, Jr. Keith Bell Salman Bhojani Rhetta Bowers John Bryant Bradley Buckley John Bucy III Ben Bumgarner Angie Chen Button Briscoe Cain Elizabeth Campos Terry Canales Giovanni Capriglione Sheryl Cole Nicole Collier David Cook Philip Cortez Charles Cunningham Drew Darby Aicha Davis Yvonne Davis Jay Dean Mano DeAyala Mark Dorazio Harold Dutton Paul Dyson Caroline Fairly Lulu Flores James Frank Erin Gamez Cassandra Garcia Hernandez Josey Garcia Linda Garcia Gary Gates Stan Gerdes Charlie Geren Barbara Gervin-Hawkins Jessica Gonzalez Mary Gonzalez Vikki Goodwin Ryan Guillen Sam Harless Cody Harris Caroline Harris Davila Richard Hayes Cole Hefner Ana Hernandez Gina Hinojosa Donna Howard Lacey Hull Ann Johnson Jolanda Jones Venton Jones Helen Kerwin Ken King Stan Kitzman Marc LaHood Suleman Lalani Stan Lambert Brooks Landgraf Jeff Leach Terri Leo-Wilson Mitch Little Oscar Longoria Janie Lopez Ray Lopez A.J. Louderback J. M. Lozano John Lujan Christian Manuel Armando Martinez Trey Martinez Fischer Don McLaughlin John McQueeney William Metcalf Morgan Meyer Terry Meza Joseph Moody Penny Morales Shaw Christina Morales Eddie Morales Matt Morgan Sergio Munoz, Jr. Candy Noble Tom Oliverson Claudia Ordaz Angelia Orr Jared Patterson Dennis Paul Mary Perez Vincent Perez Dade Phelan Mihaela Plesa Richard Raymond Ron Reynolds Ana-Maria Ramos Ramon Romero, Jr. Toni Rose Jon Rosenthal Michael Schofield Alan Schoolcraft Matthew Shaheen Joanne Shofner Lauren Simmons John Smithee David Spiller James Talarico Steve Toth Chris Turner Gary Vandeaver Denise Villalobos Armando Walle Terry Wilson Eugene Wu Erin Zwiener

Contact the Author

Sen. Joan Huffman

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0117

Capitol Office:

EXT E.14

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of the Committee Substitute to SJR 3 remain significant. The resolution mandates a one-time transfer of $3 billion from the General Revenue Fund to establish the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund, a constitutionally dedicated fund that will support research, infrastructure, and prevention efforts related to dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders. This transfer is scheduled for January 1, 2026, and results in an estimated reduction of $3,000,191,689 from General Revenue during the biennium ending August 31, 2027. This amount includes $191,689 in administrative costs associated with publishing the resolution for the November 4, 2025, election.

The fund is constitutionally restricted in use and would be managed by the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. It will be supplemented by legislative appropriations, as well as gifts, grants, and donations. The resolution authorizes annual appropriations of up to $300 million from the fund, beginning in fiscal year 2026, with unspent amounts eligible to carry forward each year. However, the actual fiscal impact of future appropriations beyond the initial transfer will depend on enabling legislation and budgetary decisions in future sessions.

Notably, the $3 billion transfer is excluded from the state’s constitutional spending limit under Article VIII, Section 22, preventing it from crowding out other budget priorities within that cap. However, the amendment does not create a new revenue stream to support or replenish the fund, and the long-term returns on investment from research or commercial applications (such as patents or licensing) are speculative and not factored into fiscal projections.

No fiscal impact on local governments is anticipated.

Vote Recommendation Notes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Committee Vote Information

Senate Committee on Finance: 14Y/0N (1 Absent)
House Committee on Public Health: 9Y/2N (2 Absent)

References

Texas Dementia Prevention and Research Institute: A Costly Overreach in the Wrong Direction

Related Legislation

View Bill Text and Status