According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), no significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated as a direct result of adopting SJR 59, aside from the standard cost associated with publishing the constitutional amendment for voter consideration, which is estimated to be $191,689​. However, while the resolution itself does not appropriate funding, it would create the framework for two new constitutionally dedicated funds — the Permanent Technical Institution Infrastructure Fund and the Available Workforce Education Fund — and thus creates the potential for fiscal impact if and when funds are later appropriated to capitalize the Permanent Fund.

Importantly, the legislation contemplates an initial transfer of $850 million from the General Revenue Fund into the Permanent Fund on January 1, 2026, which would have a significant one-time impact on the state’s budget depending on the availability of funds at that time​. Beyond this initial transfer, ongoing fiscal effects would be relatively contained, as the funds are structured to be self-sustaining through investment earnings, with an annual distribution capped at 5.5% of the fund's average fair market value. This structure is intended to preserve the purchasing power of the fund over time and limit future liabilities.

At the local government level, no fiscal implication is expected. The resolution affects only state-level fiscal operations and does not impose new mandates or costs on local governments.

In summary, while the proposed constitutional amendment itself does not directly incur substantial immediate costs beyond publication, it lays the groundwork for a significant redirection of state financial resources, particularly the anticipated $850 million deposit, toward long-term workforce education infrastructure investments.

SJR 59 proposes the creation of two constitutionally dedicated funds—the Permanent Technical Institution Infrastructure Fund and the Available Workforce Education Fund—to support capital projects and equipment purchases at the Texas State Technical College System (TSTC). While the resolution addresses a valid and important policy goal — enhancing technical education infrastructure to meet Texas’s workforce needs — the method chosen to achieve this goal raises significant concerns regarding fiscal discipline, transparency, and adherence to limited government principles.

By embedding the funding structure directly into the Texas Constitution and placing the funds outside of the general revenue fund and the Article VIII, Section 22 constitutional spending limit, the resolution creates a rigid, protected stream of funding that is largely immune from regular legislative scrutiny. This reduces future legislatures’ flexibility to adjust budget priorities in response to changing economic conditions or evolving educational needs. Such an approach locks a permanent spending commitment into the state’s foundational document without sufficient mechanisms for legislative performance review, accountability, or adaptability.

Moreover, while the resolution strengthens the operational sustainability of TSTC, it selectively favors one higher education system over other community colleges, workforce partners, and emerging technical training providers. This preferential treatment could distort the competitive landscape in public workforce education, which is better served by policies that foster innovation and competition rather than entrenchment through constitutional preference.

Although the goal of ensuring long-term infrastructure investment for technical education aligns with liberty principles such as promoting individual opportunity and personal responsibility, the fiscal and constitutional structure proposed in SJR 59 undermines limited government and fiscal transparency. Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO, unless amended as described below. Amendments should be sought to establish a statutory — rather than constitutional — funding framework subject to the normal appropriations process and the state’s constitutional spending cap, thereby preserving accountability and legislative oversight.

• Individual Liberty: The resolution supports individual liberty by enhancing access to technical education and career training. Investing in infrastructure and equipment for the Texas State Technical College System (TSTC) it creates more opportunities for Texans to acquire marketable skills, achieve economic independence, and pursue careers that suit their talents. Expanded access to technical education respects individuals' rights to chart their own paths toward self-sufficiency and prosperity.
• Personal Responsibility: The resolution encourages personal responsibility by equipping individuals with the skills necessary for gainful employment in high-demand industries. It provides a pathway for Texans to take ownership of their futures through education and workforce training, thus reducing dependency on government support programs over the long term.
• Free Enterprise: While the resolution supports the workforce pipeline critical for businesses to thrive, it simultaneously creates a constitutionally protected funding stream exclusively for one public institution—TSTC—at the exclusion of other educational providers (e.g., community colleges, emerging technical training partnerships). By favoring a single system in the Constitution, the bill risks distorting a competitive free market for educational services, which ideally should allow all institutions to compete on the basis of quality, innovation, and efficiency without government favoritism.
• Private Property Rights: The resolution authorizes TSTC to use funds for land acquisition, construction, and infrastructure improvements, but does not explicitly expand eminent domain powers or weaken existing property rights protections. However, future implementing legislation or practices surrounding land acquisition would need careful monitoring to ensure property rights are fully respected.
• Limited Government: The resolution undermines the principle of limited government by creating constitutionally dedicated funds outside the traditional legislative appropriations process and exempt from the Article VIII, Section 22 state spending limit. Embedding permanent financial commitments into the Constitution reduces legislative flexibility, bypasses normal budget accountability mechanisms, and increases the risk of long-term government growth. It sets a precedent for carving out other off-budget funds, making state government spending less transparent and less adaptable to changing fiscal priorities.

• HJR 5 (Similar To)