On November 4, 2025, Texas voters will decide on 17 proposed amendments to the state constitution—each one potentially shaping laws, taxes, and government priorities for years to come. These amendments cover a wide range of issues, from property tax exemptions and water funding to judicial oversight and parental rights. Because they are constitutional amendments, they’re harder to change once passed, so understanding what each one means is important.
Below, you’ll find the exact wording of each proposition, followed by a simple explanation of what supporters and opponents say. This guide is designed to help everyday Texans make informed choices, without the legal jargon or political spin.
Proposition 1 – SJR 59
Ballot Wording: “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.”
Pro: Supporters say this creates a dedicated fund for the Texas State Technical College System (TSTC) so the system can build and improve campuses, buy equipment and expand training programs without having to beg for yearly budget approvals. It helps prepare students for jobs in technical fields.
Con: Opponents say it ties up money in the constitution for only one school system, and by embedding it there, it limits flexibility if future lawmakers want to change priorities or funding. Also, establishing special funds in the constitution may reduce transparency and legislative oversight.
Additional Context: This measure essentially creates two funds (a permanent infrastructure fund + a workforce education fund) so that TSTC has stable long‑term funding for capital needs.
Proposition 2 – SJR 18
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of a tax on the realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust.”
Pro: Supporters say this locks in a protection so that profits from investments—whether you’ve sold them yet or not—can’t be taxed by the state. That means people who invest, build businesses or inherit assets would face fewer tax burdens and the state remains business‑friendly.
Con: Opponents argue this amendment is too broad, unnecessary (Texas already doesn’t tax capital gains as income) and it limits future lawmakers’ ability to raise revenue. It may primarily benefit wealthy people and reduce money available for services.
Additional Context: This is a preventive measure in the constitution: not only does it ban a tax on realized gains, but it includes unrealized gains (profits you haven’t sold yet). That is unusual and raises questions about future tax flexibility.
Proposition 3 – SJR 5
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment requiring the denial of bail under certain circumstances to persons accused of certain offenses punishable as a felony.”
Pro: Supporters say this helps protect public safety by making sure people accused of the most serious felonies (e.g., murder, aggravated sexual assault) are not released on bail when there’s a risk they won’t show up for trial or may threaten the community.
Con: Opponents say embedding such a rule in the constitution reduces judicial discretion, might make it harder for people who are innocent to get bail, and could lead to more people being held pre‑trial—raising cost and fairness issues.
Additional Context: Bail is the money or condition that allows someone to stay out of jail while their case is pending. This measure changes when bail must be denied entirely under the constitution for certain felonies.
Proposition 4 – HJR 7
Ballot Wording: “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.”
Pro: Supporters say Texas faces serious water and wastewater infrastructure challenges (aging pipes, supply issues with growth) and this amendment creates a stable funding source via sales tax revenue to the Texas Water Development Board (via the Texas Water Fund) to meet those needs.
Con: Opponents argue this dedicates revenue away from other priorities (education, roads, etc.), bypasses normal legislative oversight of how the money is used, and locks in a formula that may become outdated.
Additional Context: According to one opinion piece, up to $1 billion annually could be diverted to this fund if sales tax revenue exceeds a threshold.
Proposition 5 – HJR 99
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation tangible personal property consisting of animal feed held by the owner of the property for sale at retail.”
Pro: Supporters say many feed retailers are taxed on feed inventory even when it is sitting on the shelf before the selling season, and this exemption would help those businesses and farmers by reducing that tax burden, which some say is unfair or outdated.
Con: Opponents argue this gives a tax break to a very narrow group (retail animal feed) and may shift tax burden to other property owners or reduce local government revenue needed for services.
Additional context: “Ad valorem” means “according to value” — property tax. This amendment doesn’t require the exemption; it authorizes the Legislature to do so for animal feed held for retail sale.
Proposition 6 – HJR 4
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the legislature from enacting a law imposing an occupation tax on certain entities that enter into transactions conveying securities or imposing a tax on certain securities transactions.”
Pro: Supporters claim this protects Texas’ financial services industry and investors by preventing new taxes on securities transactions or on broker/dealer type entities in the future, thereby promoting business growth and investment in Texas.
Con: Opponents say it ties the hands of future legislatures, limiting a possible tax‑source in case revenue becomes short, and the benefit may mostly help big financial firms rather than average citizens.
Additional context: Again, it is a pre‑emptive prohibition — it does not create a tax now, but forbids the legislature from creating one later in the specified area.
Proposition 7 – HJR 133
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a veteran who died as a result of a condition or disease that is presumed under federal law to have been service-connected.”
Pro: Supporters say this gives a tax break to surviving spouses of veterans who died from service‑connected causes — recognizing their sacrifice and helping them stay in their home by reducing property tax burden.
Con: Opponents say while the goal is admirable, this places a cost on local property tax bases (since property tax revenue is impacted) and may shift tax burdens to other homeowners or require services to be funded differently.
Additional context: “Residence homestead” means the primary home the person lives in. The amendment doesn’t automatically give the exemption; it authorizes the Legislature to provide it.
Proposition 8 – HJR 2
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the legislature from imposing death taxes applicable to a decedent’s property or the transfer of an estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or gift.”
Pro: Supporters argue this ensures that heirs of estates won’t face an inheritance or estate tax in Texas now or in the future, giving certainty and protecting family wealth transfers.
Con: Opponents counter that Texas already does not have a state inheritance tax or estate tax, so this amendment is redundant. It also limits future options in case the state needs different tax tools for revenue.
Proposition 9 – HJR 1
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation a portion of the market value of tangible personal property a person owns that is held or used for the production of income.”
Pro: Supporters say this helps business owners by reducing property taxes on things like equipment and inventory that are used to make income (for example, machines, business assets). It gives businesses more breathing room to invest and grow.
Con: Opponents say this defunds local taxing units (schools, cities, counties) that count on property taxes for revenue; it also mainly helps business owners rather than average homeowners or renters. It could shift the tax burden elsewhere.
Additional context: Tangible personal property means things you own that are not land or buildings—machines, inventory, etc.
Proposition 10 – SJR 84
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of the appraised value of an improvement to a residence homestead that is completely destroyed by a fire.”
Pro: Supporters say this helps homeowners who suffer a devastating fire. If your home is completely destroyed, a temporary tax exemption for the improvements helps you rebuild without immediate heavy tax burden.
Con: Opponents note that this narrowly benefits those who have homes destroyed by fire (which is relatively rare) and may lead to revenue shortfalls for local taxing authorities. Also, “temporary” still needs to be defined by statute (not automatically guaranteed).
Proposition 11 – SJR 85
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district of the market value of the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled.”
Pro: Supporters say this gives senior citizens or people with disabilities a larger property‑tax break for their home, helping them maintain housing affordability and remain in their homes.
Con: Opponents argue that increasing exemptions reduces school district tax revenue, may require schools to find funding elsewhere (which might raise taxes or reduce services), and it benefits only homeowners (not renters).
Proposition 12 – SJR 27
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the membership of the tribunal to review the commission’s recommendations, and the authority of the commission, the tribunal, and the Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.”
Pro: Supporters say this strengthens oversight of judges and justices by changing who serves on the commission and tribunal and giving clearer authority for disciplining judicial misconduct. That means more accountable courts and less chance of unethical behavior going unchecked.
Con: Opponents say that by changing the structure and giving more power to certain appointed bodies (and ultimately the Texas Supreme Court), this may reduce judicial independence and allow political influence over judging. It could tilt the balance of power.
Proposition 13 – SJR 2
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment to increase the amount of the exemption of residence homesteads from ad valorem taxation by a school district from $100,000 to $140,000.”
Pro: Supporters say this increases the portion of the home’s value that is exempt from school district property tax from $100,000 to $140,000 — that means lower taxes for many homeowners and more relief for everyday families.
Con: Opponents note that this is a large cost ($1+ billion) to school funding and will reduce revenue for schools unless compensated, possibly affecting services. Also, it only helps homeowners, not renters or people without property.
Proposition 14 – SJR 3
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund to provide money for research on and prevention and treatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders in this state, and transferring to that fund $3 billion from state general revenue.”
Pro: Supporters say this is a major investment in health care and research — by creating a dedicated institute and fund for dementia and related disorders, Texas shows leadership in tackling serious health challenges that affect many families.
Con: Opponents raise concerns over locking $3 billion into the fund, reducing flexibility for future spending priorities, and creating another constitutional obligation that may restrict state budgeting. Some worry about oversight and whether the money will be used effectively.
Additional context: Dementia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s are growing health issues. This amendment puts the funding in the constitution rather than leaving it to yearly budget votes.
Proposition 15 – SJR 34
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children.”
Pro: Supporters say this recognizes parents’ rights to make decisions about how their children are raised, educated, and cared for—giving stronger clarity and protection in the constitution.
Con: Opponents say this language is vague and may have unintended consequences: it could limit children’s rights, reduce rights of foster or adopted children, or give courts less ability to intervene when needed. Some see it as a political statement rather than a practical policy.
Proposition 16 – SJR 37
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment clarifying that a voter must be a United States citizen.”
Pro: Supporters argue that this simply puts into the constitution what is already required by law — that only U.S. citizens can vote in Texas, assuring voters of the eligibility rule.
Con: Opponents say it is redundant (citizenship is already required), and may be a symbolic gesture. There is concern it may shift focus away from real election access issues (like registration difficulties) and could signal restrictive attitudes.
Proposition 17 – HJR 34
Ballot Wording: “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the amount of the market value of real property located in a county that borders the United Mexican States that arises from the installation or construction on the property of border security infrastructure and related improvements.”
Pro: Supporters say this gives border counties an incentive to host or allow border‑security infrastructure (walls, fencing, related improvements) by offering property‑tax relief for those improvements — which could help local economies and aid state border‑security efforts.
Con: Opponents say this is unfair because it benefits property owners in border counties (especially those partnering in security improvements) while possibly reducing tax base there and increasing burden on other taxpayers. There are concerns about privatizing border infrastructure and the shift of cost.
These 17 amendments cover tax issues, education, public safety, health, veterans’ benefits, judicial oversight, parental rights, and border policy. Because each is a constitutional amendment, if approved they become harder to change than regular laws. That means future lawmakers and voters will have fewer options to adjust or repeal them.
Before heading to the polls, take time to review each proposition carefully. Consider how they could affect your community, your household, and the future direction of the state. Early voting begins October 21, and Election Day is November 4. Make your voice count.
