Estimated Time to Read: 8 minutes
Proposition 14 passed with nearly 70% support, earning one of the widest margins of the November constitutional amendment election. The measure would create the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT) with an initial $3 billion in constitutionally protected funding and authority for substantial annual expenditures going forward. The amendment remains stalled, however, because three voters filed an election contest challenging the validity of the statewide vote. This automatically froze implementation under Texas law.
Texas Policy Research opposed Proposition 14 because it creates a constitutionally protected spending program outside the appropriations process and outside the state’s spending limit. These fiscal concerns remain valid, but the legal challenge that is delaying Proposition 14 is a different matter. Based on the allegations, filings, and early hearings, the lawsuit appears to rest on a very weak foundation.
To understand why, it helps to examine the specific merits of the challenge, how Texas courts evaluate election contests, and how this case compares to past efforts to halt constitutional amendments.
The Core Claim: Voting Machines Were Certified Improperly
The plaintiffs allege that the voting machines used in more than 250 Texas counties were not properly certified because the laboratories that tested them lacked valid accreditation or used documentation the plaintiffs consider procedurally defective. They argue that every ballot cast on such machines is an illegal vote and that the statewide result is therefore invalid because the number of alleged illegal votes exceeds the margin of victory.
This challenge does not allege fraud or inaccurate tabulation, nor does it claim machine malfunction or ballot irregularities. It instead relies on a technical theory about whether laboratories followed certain federal guidelines when performing certification testing.
Texas courts have consistently refused to overturn elections on such grounds. Machine certification is treated as an administrative question, not a basis for nullifying millions of validly cast ballots. Courts require challengers to identify specific unlawful votes and demonstrate that those votes changed the outcome. The plaintiffs have not attempted to do that.
If the concern were genuinely about accuracy, the plaintiffs could have requested a review of paper ballots that were fed into the machines. They did not. That omission further undermines the credibility of their claim that the outcome is unknowable.
Early Court Hearings Reveal Serious Procedural Flaws
During the initial hearing, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to properly serve Governor Greg Abbott (R) and Comptroller Kelly Hancock (R). Without proper service, the court could not consider their request for a temporary injunction. The Secretary of State’s attorney was present and prepared to defend the election results, but the procedural posture of the case prevented further action.
Election contests require strict adherence to service and filing rules because they directly implicate the will of millions of voters. Procedural missteps signal that the lawsuit may not have been carefully constructed, and they often foreshadow broader weaknesses in the underlying legal theory.
How This Challenge Stacks Up Historically
To understand the strength of the challenge to Proposition 14, it helps to compare it to other recent lawsuits involving statewide constitutional amendments. Over the last several years, Texans have seen two main categories of challenges: ballot-language cases and machine-certification cases. One type has historically held weight in the courts. The other has not.
In 2021, several grassroots organizations challenged Proposition 2, a constitutional amendment that expanded the ability of counties to use tax-increment financing. Their argument centered on what voters were told on the ballot. They claimed the ballot language failed to disclose that the amendment involved issuing debt and funding that debt through increases in property tax revenue in certain areas. A district court allowed the case to proceed, and in January 2024, the Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. The appellate court held that judges do have authority to review whether ballot language accurately describes the “chief features” of a constitutional amendment and that fiscal consequences are particularly important for voters to understand.
That ruling did not strike down Proposition 2, but it confirmed a key principle that has long existed in Texas law: when voters are not told the truth about the fiscal impact of an amendment, a court can review the ballot language and, if necessary, invalidate the result. The legal theory in the 2021 case rested on voter understanding. It argued that the ballot itself was misleading, and courts recognized that as a valid constitutional concern.
By contrast, the challenges filed after the November 2023 election presented a completely different theory. These suits did not allege that voters were misled. Instead, the plaintiffs argued that electronic voting systems used in Texas were not properly certified because the laboratories that tested them allegedly failed to meet federal accreditation requirements. They claimed that this defect rendered all votes cast on those machines “illegal.” The Fifteenth Court of Appeals rejected that argument in several decisions. In Nelson v. Eubanks (Nov. 26, 2024), the court held that plaintiffs lacked standing and could not show that alleged certification defects had affected the outcome of the election.
The court reinforced that conclusion in a consolidated set of election-contest appeals in April 2025, again dismissing machine-certification challenges for failure to show any concrete injury or any plausible connection between the alleged issues and the election result.
These rulings are directly relevant to the Proposition 14 lawsuit because the plaintiffs here have adopted the same machine-certification theory that courts have already rejected. They do not claim the ballot language was misleading. They do not challenge the accuracy of the vote count. They do not allege that voters were disenfranchised. They instead argue that technical disputes about laboratory accreditation automatically convert millions of ballots into illegal votes. Appellate courts have already held that this theory does not satisfy the legal requirements for overturning an election.
Placed side by side, the contrast is clear. The 2021 challenge involved a substantive question about what voters were told on the ballot. Courts recognized that as a legitimate issue and allowed the case to move forward. The machine-certification challenges filed in 2023 and 2024, including the one now aimed at Proposition 14, rely on a theory that courts have consistently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, and lack of any connection to voter intent. The Proposition 14 lawsuit fits that latter pattern. It does not raise a defect that courts consider legally meaningful and therefore appears unlikely to succeed.
House Bill 16 Would Have Prevented This Delay
House Bill 16 (HB 16), enacted after the lawsuit was filed, changes the law so that constitutional amendments are not automatically frozen by the filing of a contest. HB 16 requires faster timelines for courts and elections officials and prevents procedural lawsuits from stalling the implementation of voter-approved amendments.
Under HB 16, Proposition 14 would already be in effect.
Although HB 16 fixes this procedural issue, the bill also represents a massive expansion of the judiciary. It creates new courts, increases staffing, raises fees, and embeds long-term costs without performance metrics or caseload triggers. Texas Policy Research opposed HB 16 for these reasons, even as we recognize that its election contest reforms address the specific procedural flaw exploited in this case.
TPR’s Position on Proposition 14 and the Lawsuit
Texas Policy Research (TPR) opposed Proposition 14 because it creates a constitutionally protected spending program with little oversight and a multi-billion-dollar commitment outside the appropriations process. These structural concerns remain and will continue to shape our fiscal analysis.
But policy disagreement does not transform a weak legal theory into a strong one. The lawsuit does not allege misleading ballot language or irregular vote counts. It instead relies on certification paperwork disputes that Texas courts have consistently treated as administrative matters rather than grounds to overturn an election.
While we remain opposed to Proposition 14 on fiscal and structural grounds, the case presented so far does not appear persuasive. Courts are unlikely to overturn a statewide election when voters understood the issue and approved it by a wide margin.
Conclusion: A Weak Challenge to a Strong Voter Mandate
The lawsuit delaying Proposition 14 is unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. It relies on technical objections rather than evidence of fraud, irregularities, or voter confusion. Courts prioritize voter intent and require challengers to meet a high burden before overturning the results of a statewide election.
The 2021 and 2023 cases illustrate how difficult it is to stop a constitutional amendment, even when arguments are stronger or procedural tactics are aggressive. Compared to those efforts, the Proposition 14 lawsuit is plainly weaker. Texas voters understood the amendment and passed it decisively.
Although the policy debate over Proposition 14 is far from over, the legal challenge standing in its way is not one likely to prevail.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
