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.

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.

• HB 1638 (Same As)