© 2025 88.9 KETR
Public Radio for Northeast Texas
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
88.9 KETR's 50-Year Milestone is here! Support local journalism, public media, and the free press with your contribution today.

Unpacking Texas' 17 constitutional amendment propositions on the November '25 ballot

Texas Republican lawmakers will debate whether to require proof of citizenship to vote during the upcoming legislative session. Several bills have already been filed ahead of the first day.
Desiree Rios
/
The Texas Tribune

Early voting is underway throughout Texas right now, and information, including polling locations, dates, and hours, is available through the official statewide voter portal at VoteTexas.gov. The site provides tools to confirm your voter registration, find polling places, and review sample ballots for the November 2025 election.

Understanding Constitutional Amendments vs. Regular Laws

Most of the laws Texans live under are statutory — created or changed by the Legislature through its normal lawmaking process. Statutes can be adjusted, repealed, or replaced by a simple majority vote in both chambers and the governor’s signature. Constitutional amendments, by contrast, change the foundation of Texas government itself. They require a two-thirds vote in both the Texas House and Senate and then approval by a majority of voters statewide. Because the constitution is harder to change, amendments are generally intended for matters of lasting principle or broad state policy, not routine regulation. When lawmakers use the amendment process for issues that could be handled by statute, critics often question whether the change truly needs constitutional permanence.

Proposition 1 (SJR 59): Creation of permanent technical institution infrastructure fund

Supporters say this amendment would create a dedicated fund for the Texas State Technical College System (TSTC) to support capital projects and equipment, helping workforce education expand with a long-term funding source.

Critics say embedding this funding mechanism in the constitution limits legislative oversight and budget flexibility, and that a statutory funding approach might be more transparent and adaptable.

A yes vote would adopt the amendment and authorize the fund. A no vote would leave current law in place without the dedicated constitutional fund.

Proposition 2 (SJR 18): Prohibition on a tax on realized or unrealized capital gains

Supporters say this amendment would prevent the state from imposing any tax on the realized or unrealized capital gains of individuals, families, estates or trusts—arguing it supports investment and financial growth.

Critics say that embedding such a ban in the constitution restricts future flexibility for tax policy, especially in times of need, and that the threat of such a tax is not imminent in Texas.

A yes vote would ban state taxes on those types of capital gains via constitutional amendment. A no vote would keep the current statutory environment, without the constitutional prohibition.

Proposition 3 (SJR 5): Denial of bail under certain circumstances

Supporters say this amendment would allow judges to deny bail for persons accused of certain violent or sexual felonies when clear and convincing evidence shows danger to public safety or flight risk.

Critics say it expands pre-trial detention and embeds into the constitution what could be handled by statute or procedural rule, raising concerns about due process and judicial discretion.

A yes vote would adopt the amendment granting that bail-denial power. A no vote would leave bail laws as they currently exist under statute and judiciary rule.

Proposition 4 (HJR 7): Dedication of a portion of sales tax revenue to the Texas Water Fund

Supporters say this amendment dedicates up to $1 billion per year (beyond a threshold) in sales-tax revenue to the Texas Water Development Board for water and wastewater infrastructure, helping meet growing needs.

Critics say this constitutional dedication restricts legislative budgeting and could crowd out other priorities or tie up revenue in ways that reduce flexibility.

A yes vote would approve the dedication of those revenues for the water fund. A no vote would leave current revenue allocations unchanged and the legislature would continue to set water infrastructure funding through statute and budget process.

Proposition 5 (HJR 99): Exemption from property tax for animal feed held for retail sale

Supporters say this amendment would authorize the Legislature to exempt tangible personal property used as animal feed held for retail sale from ad valorem taxation—arguing it corrects a tax inequity in the agriculture supply chain.

Critics say constitutionalizing this flexibility is unnecessary and that tax exemptions are better handled by statute; also, local governments may see reduced property-tax bases without clear offset.

A yes vote would permit the Legislature to enact such an exemption. A no vote would maintain the status quo under current property-tax law.

Proposition 6 (HJR 4): Prohibition on occupation tax or securities-transactions tax

Supporters say this amendment would prohibit the Legislature from enacting a law imposing an occupation tax on certain entities that enter into transactions conveying securities, or imposing a tax on those securities transactions—arguing it protects investment markets.

Critics say this preemptively locks in tax policy in the constitution, limiting future flexibility and possibly preventing revenue tools if needed for fiscal emergencies.

A yes vote would adopt the prohibition. A no vote would leave Legislature free to act under current statute.

Proposition 7 (HJR 133): Homestead tax exemption for surviving spouse of veteran who died of a service-connected disease

Supporters say this amendment would grant a homestead exemption from property taxes for the surviving spouse of a veteran who died of a disease presumed to be service-connected—honoring the family’s sacrifice.

Critics say while the goal is respectful, constitutionalizing this specific exemption could reduce flexibility for local taxing entities and create precedent for many future special-category exemptions.

A yes vote would allow the exemption as described. A no vote would keep current laws unchanged.

Proposition 8 (HJR 2): Prohibition on future state death, inheritance or gift taxes

Supporters say this amendment would prohibit the Legislature from imposing any future state tax on inheritances, estates, legacies, successions or gifts—arguing it protects families from potential new tax burdens.

Critics argue it removes an available revenue tool for the future, and that existing law already blocks most such taxes, making the amendment redundant.

A yes vote would adopt the prohibition. A no vote would maintain current statute without the constitutional ban.

Proposition 9 (HJR 1): Exemption for tangible personal property used in income production

Supporters say this amendment would authorize the Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation a portion of the market value of tangible personal property owned and used for income production—aimed at helping small businesses.

Critics say that shifting business-property tax relief into the constitution reduces flexibility and may shift tax burden to others or limit local governments’ tax base.

A yes vote would allow that exemption. A no vote would keep current property-tax law in place.

Proposition 10 (SJR 84): Temporary homestead exemption for improvement destroyed by fire

Supporters say this amendment would authorize a temporary homestead exemption for a residence that is completely destroyed by fire, helping homeowners recover by reducing tax burden during rebuilding.

Critics say this builds an exemption into the constitution that could be handled by statute as needed and may complicate tax administration.

A yes vote would adopt the exemption. A no vote would leave current law without the constitutional amendment.

Proposition 11 (SJR 85): Increase in homestead exemption for elderly or disabled homeowners

Supporters say this amendment would increase the homestead exemption amount for elderly or disabled homeowners (for school district taxes) from $10,000 to $60,000 of market value—reducing tax burden on vulnerable homeowners.

Critics argue that placing this relief into the constitution may limit the Legislature’s ability to adjust based on fiscal conditions and that the cost to local school districts must be considered.

A yes vote would adopt the increased exemption. A no vote would leave the current exemption amount unchanged.

Proposition 12 (SJR 27): Restructuring the State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Supporters say this amendment would revise the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, create a temporary tribunal to review its disciplinary recommendations, and adjust the authority of the commission, tribunal, and the Texas Supreme Court—arguing it enhances accountability of judges.

Critics say embedding these structural changes in the constitution reduces flexibility and may politicize the judicial‐discipline process or shift checks and balances.

A yes vote would adopt the structural changes. A no vote would keep the current commission structure under statute and existing constitutional language.

Proposition 13 (SJR 2): Increase in residence homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000 for school district taxes

Supporters say this amendment would raise the basic homestead exemption amount for school district taxes from $100,000 to $140,000 of market value—offering substantial tax relief to many homeowners.

Critics point out that this relief reduces the tax base for school districts and local governments, raising questions about how budgets and services will be funded in the future.

A yes vote would adopt the higher exemption. A no vote would maintain the current $100,000 exemption.

Proposition 14 (SJR 3): Establishment of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas

Supporters say this amendment would establish the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and a dedicated fund with $3 billion from the general fund, aimed at research, prevention and treatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders.

Critics argue that embedding such a large dedicated funding initiative in the constitution limits legislative oversight, may divert resources from other priorities, and may create rigid commitments that become hard to adjust.

A yes vote would adopt the institute and fund. A no vote would keep research and funding decisions subject to statute and budget appropriations.

Proposition 15 (SJR 34): Affirmation of parental rights

Supporters say this amendment would add language affirming that parents have the fundamental right to “care, custody, and control” of their children, and the right to make decisions about their upbringing, education, and healthcare.

Critics say while parental‐rights language is familiar, embedding broad constitutional language invites litigation and may upend existing statutes or create unintended legal consequences in areas like child welfare, education, or medical decisions.

A yes vote would adopt the parental‐rights language into the constitution. A no vote would leave the constitution unchanged and continue relying on current laws and court rulings.

Proposition 16 (SJR 37): Clarification that a voter must be a U.S. citizen

Supporters say this amendment would explicitly add language to the constitution stating that only U.S. citizens may vote in Texas elections—arguing this ensures the rule cannot be weakened in the future.

Critics say the requirement already exists under statute (Texas Election Code § 13.001) which limits voter registration to U.S. citizens, making the amendment redundant and largely symbolic.

A yes vote would adopt the constitutional language. A no vote would leave the law as currently in statute.

Proposition 17 (HJR 34): Property tax exemption for border-infrastructure construction in counties along the Texas–Mexico border

Supporters say this amendment would authorize the Legislature to provide a property-tax exemption for the amount of the market value of real property located in a county that borders Mexico that arises from the installation or construction of border-security infrastructure and related improvements—arguing it encourages investment in border counties’ infrastructure.

Critics say using tax exemptions for border-security infrastructure may shift tax burdens to other taxpayers, reduce local taxing-entity revenue, and lock policy choices into the constitution rather than statute.

A yes vote would adopt the exemption authorization. A no vote would keep property-tax law unchanged without the constitutional amendment.

Key Takeaway

Each proposition appears individually on the ballot, so voters may select “yes” or “no” for each one. A majority yes vote is required for approval. If an amendment is rejected, existing law stays in place. Because these amendments make changes to the state constitution, they establish longer-term policy directions that are harder to change than ordinary statutes.

Jerrod Knight (ETAMU '05) is General Manager of 88.9 KETR, where he leads programming, news, sports, and development operations. He also contributes reporting and commentary on local issues in Northeast Texas.