Overall Vote Recommendation

Neutral

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

SJR 63 proposes an amendment to the Texas Constitution that would change every reference to the "Gulf of Mexico" to the "Gulf of America." The resolution seeks to revise constitutional language in Articles I (Bill of Rights), VIII (Taxation and Revenue), IX (Counties), and XI (Municipal Corporations), where the term “Gulf of Mexico” is currently used in the context of defining public beaches, taxation authority, regulatory powers of coastal counties, and infrastructure development such as seawalls and breakwaters.

Specifically, the resolution alters the legal definitions in Section 33(a), Article I, related to public beach access, modifies tax and regulation provisions tied to mobile marine drilling equipment and coastal counties in Article VIII and IX, and updates language in Article XI concerning municipal financing for coastal infrastructure. The changes are solely terminological—replacing the geographic name without altering the substance, authority, or effect of the underlying constitutional provisions.

If passed, the revised terminology would be enshrined in the state’s foundational legal document, though it would not result in any legal or regulatory policy changes. The measure is largely symbolic, aiming to assert a preferred nomenclature at the constitutional level.

The originally filed version of SJR 63 proposed a constitutional amendment to replace all references to the "Gulf of Mexico" in the Texas Constitution with "Gulf of America." This version amended four specific constitutional provisions: Section 33(a), Article I; Section 1-i, Article VIII; Section 1-A, Article IX; and Section 7(a), Article XI. These changes were purely semantic and did not modify the substantive meaning or effect of the provisions. The ballot language proposed in this version described the change as a “redesignation” of terminology referring to the “partially landlocked body of water on the southeastern periphery of the North American continent.”

The Committee Substitute for SJR 63 maintains the same core function—replacing "Gulf of Mexico" with "Gulf of America"—and addresses the same constitutional sections. However, the language has been edited slightly for clarity and form. Notably, the ballot language was revised to say "changing references" rather than "redesignating references," which is more straightforward and may better resonate with voters.

No new sections or substantive legal changes were introduced in the Committee Substitute; it remains a symbolic renaming effort. The primary distinction lies in minor linguistic adjustments and the procedural annotations that reflect its movement through the legislative process.

Author

Mayes Middleton

Co-Author

Bob Hall

Contact the Author

Sen. Mayes Middleton

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0111

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.706

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SJR 63 will not have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas beyond the standard costs associated with publishing a constitutional amendment for voter consideration. The estimated cost for the Secretary of State to publish the resolution as required by law is approximately $191,689. This cost includes the printing and distribution of the amendment language in newspapers across the state ahead of the November 4, 2025, election, as mandated by the Texas Constitution.

Importantly, no structural changes to state operations, policies, or regulatory responsibilities are associated with the proposed amendment. Since the resolution merely changes geographic terminology from “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America” in the Texas Constitution without altering any underlying authority or obligations, it does not trigger additional administrative or implementation costs for state agencies.

The LBB also reports no significant fiscal implications for local governments. Counties and municipalities that interact with state constitutional provisions referencing coastal management, offshore equipment, or infrastructure development are unaffected in terms of financial responsibility. The symbolic nature of the language change does not necessitate any operational adjustments at the local level.

Overall, the fiscal impact of SJR 63 is minimal and confined to routine election-related publication expenses, which the state can absorb using existing budgeted resources.

Vote Recommendation Notes

SJR 63 proposes a constitutional amendment to change all references in the Texas Constitution from the “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America.” The measure is positioned as a response to a 2025 federal executive order issued by President Donald Trump renaming the body of water at the national level. The stated intent is to align the Texas Constitution with the updated federal terminology and recognize the region’s symbolic importance to the United States.

Substantively, the resolution makes no changes to legal authority, regulatory powers, or citizen rights. It amends four constitutional provisions to update a geographic reference but does not alter their meaning, purpose, or enforcement. The fiscal impact is minimal, with the Legislative Budget Board estimating a one-time publication cost of approximately $191,689, which the state can absorb within existing resources.

From a liberty-oriented framework, SJR 63 neither expands nor restricts individual liberty, personal responsibility, private property rights, or the free enterprise system. While it does utilize the formal constitutional amendment process for a symbolic change — which raises concerns for those prioritizing limited government — it does not result in regulatory overreach or policy burdens. The resolution could be seen as a gesture of cultural or political expression rather than a meaningful policy change.

Furthermore, the state-federal “alignment” argument advanced in the bill analysis overlooks the fact that state constitutions are not obligated to conform to symbolic federal terminology changes, particularly when they do not alter legal obligations or constitutional mandates. In a politically polarized environment, the move may be perceived more as a performative gesture than a substantive policy improvement.

Symbolic changes such as these—when elevated to the level of constitutional revision—risk trivializing the seriousness and purpose of constitutional amendments. Such use of legislative time and state resources, even if minimal, can be considered inconsistent with the principle of efficient, restrained governance.

Given the symbolic nature of the measure, its negligible fiscal and policy impacts, and its alignment with federal terminology, the bill does not merit strong opposition or endorsement. As such, Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on SJR 63.

Individual Liberty: The resolution does not impose, restrict, or expand any rights of individuals. It makes no impact on speech, association, privacy, due process, or equal protection. The change in geographic terminology does not touch civil liberties, nor does it affect legal interpretations of existing rights. Thus, the resolution is neutral on this front.
Personal Responsibility: There is no change in citizen obligations or expectations of individual conduct. The symbolic renaming does not alter laws governing behavior or accountability, nor does it affect civic duties or legal responsibilities. Therefore, personal responsibility is unaffected.
Free Enterprise: Although the resolution updates language in constitutional provisions related to offshore oil and gas drilling, marine equipment, and coastal infrastructure (e.g., sea walls), it does not revise the underlying economic or regulatory frameworks that govern these activities. Businesses and property owners are not affected in terms of taxation, permitting, or operations. The symbolic renaming does not create new economic opportunities or constraints.
Private Property Rights: Some of the amended sections involve coastal areas and beach access (e.g., Section 33(a), Article I), but the resolution does not modify any legal rights related to land use, ownership, easements, or eminent domain. The renaming has no practical effect on how the state or private parties enforce or defend property rights.
Limited Government: While the resolution does not expand state power, it does use the formal constitutional amendment process to make purely symbolic changes. From a limited government perspective, this raises a mild concern about the appropriate use of constitutional instruments. Amending the Constitution — a tool typically reserved for weighty, structural reforms — for symbolic or aesthetic changes may be seen as unnecessary expansion of government effort, even if the fiscal and operational impact is minimal. That said, because the measure does not create or delegate new powers, the effect is minor.

Related Legislation

HJR 128 (Same As)

View Bill Text and Status