In odd-numbered years such as 2025, the November General Election includes for voter consideration any proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution that passed during the recently concluded legislative session.
The 89th Texas Legislature has offered 17 constitutional amendments this year. If a majority of voters ratify these proposals on Nov. 4, they will be added to the state constitution.
The Dispatch Record will offer background information on each of these amendments, along with arguments for and against, where available, so readers can have appropriate details before they head to the polls. Source for this information: Texas Legislative Council.
Propositions 1-4 follow. Subsequent editions of the Dispatch Record will include analysis of the remainder of the proposed amendments.
PROPOSITION 1
“The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the permanent technical institution infrastructure fund and the available workforce education fund to support the capital needs of educational programs offered by the Texas State Technical College System.”
Background: This would provide a dedicated source of funding for capital projects and equipment purchases for technical vocational education programs offered by the Texas State Technical College System.
The TSTC System currently receives money from the Higher Education Fund, but that is limited to 2.2% of the total appropriation each fiscal year, which provides less state support per student to TSTC than to other state institutions. If approved by voters, the initial distribution of funding to the permanent technical institution infrastructure fund will ensure the TSTC System receives a total of $52 million in capital funding beginning September 2026.
Arguments for: The amendment would invest in the state’s need for a skilled workforce by providing dedicated endowment funding for the expansion of TSTC programs. The legislature has added five new campuses to TSTC since 2012, but TSTC has not been able to grow these campuses to adequately address local workforce demands. This additional funding would allow TSTC to fulfill these needs.
Arguments against: The proposal would increase government spending where it might not be needed. Amending the constitution to create a perpetual source of funding outside the regular appropriation process will remove the discretion of future legislatures to determine proper funding levels.
PROPOSITION 2
“The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of a tax on the realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust.”
Background: Texas currently does not impose a tax on the capital gains of an individual, family, estate or trust. Although the Texas Constitution prohibits the legislature from imposing an income tax on a person, family, estate or trust, a capital gains tax is not specifically prohibited.
This amendment would not prohibit an ad valorem tax on property, a sales tax or a use tax. It would apply only to a capital gains tax.
Arguments for: With the amendment, a future legislature could not enact a tax on capital gains that is structured to avoid the income tax prohibition.
Texas has long been recognized for its pro-business environment. Capital gains taxes can discourage investments, slow economic growth and reduce job creation. States that impose a capital gains tax often see investors and businesses relocate to jurisdictions with more favorable tax policies. To ensure long-term certainty in tax policy, Texas should explicitly prohibit any form of capital gains tax.
Arguments against: A constitutional prohibition limits the ability of future legislatures to impose a capital gains tax during unexpected economic circumstances.
The amendment is unnecessary since there currently is no proposal to institute a capital gains tax.
PROPOSITION 3
“The constitutional amendment requiring the denial of bail under certain circumstances to persons accused of certain offenses punishable as a felony.”
Background: This proposal would require the denial of bail pending trial to a person charged with serious felony offenses such as murder, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child and human trafficking if the attorney representing the state demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that bail is insufficient to prevent the person’s nonappearance in court or ensure the safety of the victim and community.
The amendment also describes what a judge or magistrate must consider when determining whether to deny bail.
The proposal would add to the constitutional list of circumstances in which a person may be denied release on bail pending trial.
Arguments for: Pretrial releases on low bail or personal recognizance can allow dangerous individuals to remain in the community. Some high-risk defendants who can afford bail may be released even if they pose a significant threat to public safety.
Limiting application of the amendment to only the most serious offenses ensure that only those who pose the greatest risk are denied bail. The amendment places a clear burden on the prosecution for the burden of proof required to detain a defendant without bail.
Defendants would have the right to be represented by legal counsel at bail denial hearings, ensuring their rights at this critical stage of the pretrial process. A defendant also would retain the right to appeal a judge’s decision regarding bail.
Arguments against: This proposal would lead to longer pretrial detentions for individuals who have yet to be convicted of a crime and undermine the presumption of innocence.
Texas judges already have the discretion to effectively deny bail to potentially dangerous individuals by setting cash bonds at amounts these defendants cannot pay.
The amendment requires a judge to consider the criminal history of a defendant when making a decision to deny bail, which means offenses committed long ago could be used against the defendant -- even those that were nonviolent in nature.
Increasing reliance on pretrial detention could exacerbate overcrowding in county jails. A better approach would be to require judges to consider the “least restrictive conditions” that would reasonably ensure public safety and the defendant’s appearance in court.
PROPOSITION 4
“The constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas water fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.”
Background: The amendment would direct the comptroller of public accounts, beginning in 2028, to deposit each year into the Texas water fund $1 billion of state sales and use tax revenue that exceeds the first $46.5 billion collected during the fiscal year. The proposal would prohibit those monies from being used to construct infrastructure to transport fresh groundwater and could not be transferred from the fund except by legislative appropriation. Any allocation prescribed by the legislature may not be changed during the first 10 years except during a declared disaster. The duty of the comptroller to deposit tax revenue to the water fund would expire after 20 years, along with the provisions restricting the use of that revenue.
Arguments for: Studies indicate that $154 billion will be needed over the next 50 years to fully address water infrastructure concerns. The proposed amendment would provide a sustainable funding mechanism to help with those water needs. Without significant investment in water resources the risk of shortages could negatively impact quality of life for Texans, drive up costs for businesses and stall economic development.
Because water infrastructure projects can be expensive, complex and take a long time to complete, it is critical that investment happens now to ensure water security into the future.
Arguments against: The proposed amendment would not provide sufficient funding to secure the state’s water future, given the size of needs or address what priority should be given to new water supply development.