89th Legislature Regular Session

SB 914

Overall Vote Recommendation
Neutral
Principle Criteria
Free Enterprise
Property Rights
Personal Responsibility
Limited Government
Individual Liberty
Digest
SB 914 amends Section 41.0052 of the Texas Election Code to allow certain small cities to change the date of their general elections for officers to the November uniform election date. This option is available only to cities that meet specific criteria: a population of 9,000 or less, predominantly located in a county with a total area of less than 6,200 square miles, and governed under a council-manager system. Currently, cities holding their general elections on a date other than November may opt-in to this change, but they must make their decision by December 31, 2026. This provision will expire on January 1, 2027.

The bill provides flexibility for eligible cities to consolidate their elections with other local, state, and federal contests held in November, which could increase voter turnout and reduce election costs. By aligning elections with the November cycle, the bill aims to encourage broader civic participation while maintaining local control over election scheduling. The bill does not mandate a change but rather empowers cities to make the decision themselves.

The Committee Substitute for SB 914 introduces a few key modifications to the originally filed bill, primarily aimed at expanding eligibility and providing more flexibility for cities considering a change to their general election date. One of the most significant changes is the increase in the allowable county size limit from 4,800 square miles to 6,200 square miles, thereby expanding the number of cities that may qualify for this provision. By doing so, the revised bill allows more small cities to align their elections with the November uniform election date, potentially increasing voter participation and reducing administrative costs.

Another notable change is the extension of the deadline for cities to opt in to this change. The original bill required cities to decide by December 31, 2024, but the Committee Substitute extends this deadline to December 31, 2026. This additional two-year window provides local governments with more time to evaluate and implement the election date change if they find it beneficial. Similarly, the expiration date of the provision has been adjusted; while the original bill set it to expire on January 1, 2025, the revised version extends it to January 1, 2027, ensuring that cities have ample opportunity to take advantage of the option before it is no longer available.

Overall, the Committee Substitute makes SB 914 more inclusive and flexible, allowing a broader range of cities to participate and granting them more time to make the transition. These adjustments reflect an effort to accommodate local needs while still maintaining a voluntary approach, reinforcing the bill’s intent to enhance voter turnout and streamline election administration without imposing a statewide mandate.

Author
Cesar Blanco
Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, no fiscal impact on the state is anticipated, meaning that implementing this bill will not require additional state funding or resources. Since the bill merely provides an option for certain cities to change their general election date, rather than imposing a new requirement, it does not generate new costs for state agencies.

At the local government level, no significant fiscal impact is expected either. While some eligible cities that choose to switch their general election date to the November uniform election may see minor cost savings—such as reduced administrative expenses from consolidating elections with other scheduled contests—these savings are not projected to be substantial. The bill does not require cities to make the change, meaning any financial effects will be entirely voluntary and dependent on local government decisions.

Overall, SB 914 has no adverse fiscal consequences, and for some cities, it may increase election efficiency by allowing them to hold elections on the same date as other larger contests, potentially reducing operational costs over time.

Vote Recommendation Notes

SB 914 aims to improve voter participation by allowing certain small cities to move their general elections to the November uniform election date, where turnout is typically higher. The bill is rooted in the idea that consolidating local elections with larger contests reduces election costs, increases civic engagement, and simplifies the voting process for residents. The example of the City of Alpine, cited in the bill analysis, demonstrates that November elections often yield significantly higher voter participation compared to local off-cycle elections. These benefits align with the principles of Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility, as they provide local governments with an option—not a mandate—to make changes that could enhance democratic participation.

However, there are valid objections to moving local elections to a uniform election date. Critics argue that local election issues may be diluted when placed on a ballot with higher-profile state and federal races. Voter confusion and ballot fatigue could lead to uninformed voting on local matters, potentially reducing the quality of decision-making at the municipal level. Additionally, there are concerns about partisan shifts, as turnout patterns in November elections may benefit one political group over another, potentially altering the balance of power in local government. Administrative challenges—including longer ballots, increased logistical demands, and resource constraints—also present potential hurdles for election officials. Finally, the bill’s limited scope—only applying to cities with populations under 9,000 and in counties smaller than 6,200 square miles—means it does not extend this flexibility to all local governments, which raises questions about fairness and local control.

Given these competing factors, Texas Policy Research remains NEUTRAL on SB 914. While the bill’s goals are commendable, its potential downsides cannot be overlooked, particularly regarding local election integrity and administrative feasibility. A more favorable stance could be taken if the bill were expanded to apply to all local governments or if it addressed concerns about election administration and voter education. As currently written, SB 914 provides an option but does not comprehensively resolve all challenges associated with election date changes.

Related Legislation
View Bill Text and Status