In Texas, the Uniform Election will take place on November 4, 2025, which includes voting on statewide constitutional amendments and various local races.
Proposition 1 (SJR 59): Texas State Technical College funding
VOTE NO
Why? The outcomes-based funding risks at Texas State Technical College are not completely addressed, as state funding could be reduced if graduates fail to meet salary thresholds due to outside influences, such as economic downturns. This situation limits the college’s operational flexibility, even with the backing of an endowment. Additionally, the upfront costs are substantial, estimated at around $1 billion, necessitating a considerable allocation from the state without introducing new taxes, which could put pressure on general revenue. Furthermore, the returns on investments are uncertain and may vary with market conditions, which might result in inconsistent income, even with mechanisms like rolling averages designed to stabilize these fluctuations.
Proposition 1 (SJR 59): Texas State Technical College funding
VOTE NO
Why? Limited direct evidence suggests that dedicated funds will effectively address existing gaps, especially considering that similar initiatives, such as the community college funding reforms in 2023, are already in place. The impact of Texas State Technical College could be assessed through regular budget evaluations instead of reliance on permanent entitlements. Moreover, locking funding into the constitution circumvents the biennial legislative review process, which diminishes transparency; lawmakers are then restricted from easily modifying allocations during economic downturns or when facing competing priorities, potentially undermining the principles of limited government.
Proposition 3 (SJR 5): Bail reform
VOTE NO
Why? Mandating denial of bail in certain scenarios restricts judicial discretion, riskily positioning pretrial detention as the default option and undermining the foundational presumption of innocence under the 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; this often leads to wrongful detention based solely on accusations. Such policies entrench a “tough-on-crime” mentality within the Constitution, complicating future reforms and disregarding research that demonstrates pretrial detention does not necessarily improve public safety while it devastates families and disrupts employment. Instead, bail should be calibrated to reflect the severity of the crime, ensuring a fairer justice system for all involved.
Proposition 4 (HJR 7): Water infrastructure funding
VOTE NO
Why? Locks $20 billion into the constitution, significantly constraining legislative flexibility to re-prioritize funds in times of economic downturn or when competing needs such as education and disaster relief arise. This approach diverts essential sales tax revenue from the general fund, potentially straining the state budget, especially if sales tax growth falters during recessions, thus limiting available resources for critical infrastructure like roads and schools. Furthermore, it could inadvertently escalate costs for urban taxpayers who will find themselves subsidizing rural projects, as there is no robust mechanism to guarantee equal distribution of funds beyond broad priorities. This will be a direct hit to taxpayers.
Proposition 5 (HJR 99): Tax exemption on animal feed
VOTE NO
Why? The proposed change to the constitution introduces yet another targeted exemption, perpetuating a troubling trend of fragmented tax cuts that risk complicating future revenue strategies while failing to tackle the underlying root cause of the problem. This approach not only fosters unequal treatment among businesses—where much of the retail inventory remains taxable—but also threatens to undermine local fiscal autonomy, as the benefits of such measures are not shared broadly. Additionally, although it may lead to a reduction in property tax revenues for counties, cities, and school districts, this proposition will, in time, shift the financial burden onto other taxpayers and ultimately constrain funding for essential public services. It is crucial to consider the long-term consequences of these piecemeal tax cuts on our communities and the vital services they rely on.
Proposition 6 (HJR 4): Securities tax ban
VOTE NO
Why? The current approach offers minimal direct relief to low- and middle-income households while favoring high-finance activities, thereby exacerbating the wealth gap unless comprehensive fiscal reforms are implemented. By permanently eliminating a viable tool for generating state income during fiscal crises or shifting economic conditions, it restricts the ability of legislatures to adjust tax policies without incurring significant constitutional hurdles. This outlook is not only short-sighted but also unnecessary, especially given that no state currently enforces securities transaction taxes. The preemptive ban limits future flexibility to respond to economic challenges, effectively “tying the hands” of lawmakers who may need to act decisively in the face of evolving fiscal demands.
Proposition 7 (HJR 133): Tax exemption for veterans’ spouses
VOTE NO
Why? Limited in support, this initiative only assists a small group of people and specific “presumptive” conditions, significantly neglecting the wider and more varied needs of veterans and survivors. Although the possible administrative challenges in verifying presumptive conditions and remarriage statuses are acknowledged, these issues pale in comparison to the much greater injustices faced by many in the veteran community. Ultimately, this approach not only falls short of addressing the real and pressing needs of our veterans but also perpetuates an illusion of progress, misleading voters into believing that meaningful action is being taken to support those who have served.
Proposition 8 (HJR 2): Inheritance tax ban
VOTE NO
Why? Texas has not imposed estate taxes since 2015, a decision that raises constitutional concerns without resolving significant issues like the federal estate tax burden. While this policy primarily aids affluent estates—those valued over $5–10 million—it provides minimal assistance to the average Texan whose estate does not meet these federal thresholds. This approach not only fails to alleviate the financial pressures on regular families but could also worsen wealth inequality by allowing large family transfers to remain tax-free. Addressing these disparities will require an intelligent study before this becomes legislation.
Proposition 9 (HJR 1): Inventory and equipment tax exemption
VOTE NO
Why? This resolution leads to direct revenue shortfalls for counties, cities, and schools, with an estimated $72.6 million decrease in state recapture payments by 2027. This situation may force a shift in financial burdens onto homeowners and other taxpayers, leading to increased rates or fees needed to sustain essential services such as education and infrastructure. Additionally, corporate welfare could disproportionately benefit specific industries and worsen Texas’s unequal tax system, where lower-income residents already contribute more through sales and use taxes if property revenues decrease. Furthermore, “there is no guarantee of economic growth, as critics point out that the relief offered is limited and unlikely to alleviate the broader property tax pressures affecting non-exempt sectors.”
Proposition 10 (SJR 84): Tax exemption for homes destroyed by fire
VOTE NO
Why? The current approach is fundamentally flawed, offering limited benefits to only ~5,000-10,000 homeowners annually while neglecting renters, business owners, and those with partial damage, which may exacerbate existing disaster inequities. By incentivizing residence in fire-prone areas without tackling crucial issues like forest management or unintentional or intentional man-made fires, this policy could result in soaring long-term insurance costs and significant state bailouts, projected at $2-5 billion annually by 2030. Furthermore, it diminishes federal revenue by an estimated $100-500 million each year, forcing other taxpayers to shoulder the burden. Such a strategy risks creating a dangerous precedent of perpetual exemptions that threaten to undermine our tax base amidst an alarming $34 trillion national debt.
Proposition 11 (SJR 85): School tax exemption for the elderly or disabled homeowners
VOTE NO
Why? Shifts the tax burden to non-exempt taxpayers, with revenue shortfalls being addressed through state funds derived from sales taxes and other sources. This indirectly increases costs for renters, young homeowners, and small businesses that do not qualify for exemptions, exacerbating inequities within the property tax system. Consequently, it could lead to higher taxes or increased spending, primarily benefiting homeowners while neglecting renters, who constitute 40% of Texas’s population; this situation reflects the deceptive nature of the legislation. This is another failure in legislation.
Proposition 12 (SJR 27): Changing the State Judicial Conduct Commission
VOTE NO
Why? Reducing trial court judges from three to two and imposing “diverse” court types risks eliminating the valuable expertise provided by experienced trial judges, particularly in handling misconduct cases. This shift could result in less informed decisions, undermining the integrity of the judicial process. “The current structure, which adeptly manages thousands of complaints each year, demonstrates its effectiveness, meaning adjustments may constitute unnecessary “tinkering” that jeopardizes judicial independence without offering clear advantages.” Moreover, proceeding with such changes without adequate data to justify the move would be both reckless and misguided.
Proposition 13 (SJR 2): Increased school tax exemption for homeowners
VOTE NO
Why? The proposed policy could significantly harm public schools by cutting state and local funding by $4 to $6 billion each year. This reduction may strain budgets in already underfunded districts, leading to larger class sizes, teacher layoffs, and cuts to important programs. Wealthier homeowners with high-value properties, such as those valued over $500,000, would see greater financial benefits, while renters and low-income individuals without homes might face increased indirect costs due to fewer available services. Moreover, Texas is projected to face over a $20 billion shortfall in educational funding over the next decade, and without new revenue sources, this may necessitate future tax increases in other areas like sales or income taxes. The impact of these changes is not uniform; rural and lower-value districts would lose a larger share of their budgets, exacerbating the educational disparities between urban and rural areas, while commercial properties would only cover about 20% of the funding shortfall, thereby increasing costs for businesses. This is an intentional attack to speed up the process of the privatization of education.
Proposition 14 (SJR 3): Funding for dementia research and prevention
VOTE NO
Why? Despite over $2 billion in federal funding each year for stem cell research—$321 million of which is designated for embryonic stem cell lines—there remains a critical need for a more holistic approach to disease treatment. However, trusting this holistic approach in the hands of government is a terrible mistake.
Proposition 15 (SJR 34): Codifying parental rights
VOTE NO
Why? Parental rights are already robustly safeguarded by established federal case law and state statutes, such as Texas, which has a long-standing statutory framework for parental rights, primarily outlined in the Texas Family Code (e.g., Chapter 151 on rights and duties in the parent-child relationship) and Education Code (e.g., Chapter 26 on parental involvement in education). SB12 “Parental Bill of Rights”: Requires parental consent for health services, access to student records/curriculum, bans DEI in schools, opt-in for sex education, prohibits gender identity instruction, and creates grievance processes. SB13 enhances parental oversight of school libraries: Mandates parent-led advisory councils, procedures for reviewing “sexually explicit” materials, and board authority to remove books. SB204 requires the State Board of Education to create a parental rights handbook explaining education rights; mandates trustee training on parental involvement. HB116 enacts reforms governing the involuntary termination of parental rights, limiting it to cases of actual harm or significant risk to the child. HB3281, enacted as a companion to HB116, further refines termination procedures to protect parental rights from overreach. SB2052, enacted, requires judges to prioritize parental decisions in custody disputes unless clear harm is shown.
HB4656 enacted is a companion to SB 2052; it reinforces judicial deference to parents in child-related rulings, plus God-given rights, the Texas Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. Introducing additional measures risks inciting legal confusion without delivering any substantial benefits. Furthermore, the conditional language in this policy diminishes parental protections by linking rights to the “responsibility to nurture and protect.” This dangerous implication suggests that the state could intervene or revoke inherent rights whenever it perceives parental shortcomings, even in subjective situations like family disagreements.
Such a proposal not only undermines parental authority but also empowers government overreach, threatening the fundamental rights that families hold dear.
Proposition 16 (SJR 37): Clarifying citizenship requirement for voters
VOTE NO
Why? This is already law.
Proposition 17 (HJR 34): Property tax exemption for border security infrastructure
VOTE NO
Why? If the government establishes the precedent that private land can be appropriated for “border security infrastructure,” it sets a dangerous tone for landowners. This concerning trend not only threatens individual property rights but also sets the stage for a slippery slope of ongoing land seizures under the guise of public interest. Once this initial acceptance occurs, there will be a relentless pursuit of expansions that encroach further on private properties. The implications are dire: landowners could progressively lose their ancestral lands, communities may become fragmented, and the sanctity of personal property could be undermined. It is imperative to resist such measures that fundamentally erode the rights that protect individuals from overreach by the state.
If you place your trust in our political system after this legislative session, you risk becoming part of the problem; to instigate true change, it is crucial that you do your research, thoroughly read the bills, and think critically before casting your vote.
Early voting begins on October 20, 2025, and continues until October 31, 2025. During this period, polls are typically open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., although hours may vary depending on the location or day.
For those planning to vote on Election Day, polling places will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on November 4, 2025. Remember, you can join the line by 7 p.m. and still be allowed to cast your vote.