WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HJR 121

Proposing a constitutional amendment to require that future constitutional amendments become effective only if approved by a majority of the voters in at least three-fourths of the counties of the state.

89th Legislature (2025) Introduced by Janis Holt and 1 co-sponsor

Texas constitutional amendment requiring future amendments to win approval in 191+ counties plus statewide majority, shifting amendment power toward rural areas.

Referred to State Affairs
#elections--general(i0310) #resolutions--constitutionalamendments(i0661)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HJR 121

Legislative bill overview

HJR 121 proposes a Texas constitutional amendment that would require future constitutional amendments to be approved not only by a statewide majority of voters, but also by majorities in at least three-fourths of Texas's 254 counties. Currently, Texas constitutional amendments need only pass with a statewide popular vote majority. This would fundamentally alter the amendment process by adding a geographic distribution requirement.

Why is this important

This change would significantly raise the threshold for amending the Texas Constitution, making it substantially harder to pass statewide amendments. It would shift power toward rural and less-populous counties, since winning approval in 191 counties would be required regardless of population distribution. This could affect major policy changes on taxes, education, healthcare, and other constitutional matters that typically require voter approval for amendments.

Potential points of contention

  • Rural vs. urban representation: The requirement privileges sparsely populated counties equally with densely populated urban areas, meaning amendments could theoretically fail despite winning support from a substantial majority of Texans by population
  • Difficulty passing amendments: Even popular reforms could fail if they concentrate support in urban areas; critics argue this could paralyze constitutional modernization
  • Intent and fairness debate: Supporters may argue geographic distribution prevents dominance by major cities; opponents may argue it violates democratic principle of equal representation (one person, one vote)

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.