Texas Republican Primary Proposition 2 Explained, Should Voters Approve All Local Property Tax Increases?

The Proposition, Word for Word

“Texas should require any local government budget that raises property taxes to be approved by voters at a November general election.”

Proposition 2 passed in the March 3, 2026 Republican primary. Texas voters want direct control over local tax increases.

What It Does NOT Do

This proposition is non-binding. It does not change state law or immediately affect any tax bill. The Republican Party of Texas describes it as an “opinion poll,” not a policy referendum. No local government is currently required to hold a voter referendum before raising property taxes as a result of this vote.

What It Actually Proposes

Proposition 2 would require any local government budget that raises property taxes to be approved by voters at a November general election. 

Currently, Texas already has a partial version of this idea in law. Under the 2019 Senate Bill 2 — the Texas Property Tax Reform and Transparency Act — local governments that want to raise property tax revenues by more than 3.5% must put that increase to a voter referendum. Proposition 2 goes significantly further. It would apply to any property tax increase — not just those exceeding a threshold — and would require approval at a general election in November, not a special election called at the local government’s discretion.

Who Would Be Affected

Every taxing entity in Texas that can levy property taxes would fall under this requirement, including:

• City and county governments
• Independent school districts
• Community college districts
• Hospital districts
• Water districts and municipal utility districts
• Emergency services districts

Texas has more than 4,000 such taxing entities. Each one that sought to raise property tax revenues — even by a single dollar — would be required to ask voters at the next November general election before proceeding.

What Supporters Say

Supporters argue the current 3.5% rollback rate threshold is too high — it still allows meaningful tax increases without voter consent. They contend that any increase in the tax burden on property owners should require democratic approval, since property owners have no ability to opt out of property taxes the way they can choose not to purchase a taxable product.

“If all of these pass, then they will indicate to the Legislature that what you’ve done so far isn’t enough — we need more,” University of Houston political science lecturer Nancy Sims said.

Supporters also argue November general elections ensure maximum voter participation — rather than low-turnout special elections where small groups can drive outcomes.

What Critics Say

Critics raise several practical concerns. Requiring every tax increase to go to a November general election ballot would:

• Delay emergency spending — if a city needs to respond to a flood, hurricane, or infrastructure failure between January and October, it could not raise tax revenue until the following November at the earliest
• Create ballot clutter — Texas’s 4,000+ taxing entities could generate dozens of individual propositions on a single November ballot in urban counties
• Restrict local government flexibility — locally elected officials, already accountable to voters through elections, would lose the ability to respond to budget shortfalls without a lengthy and costly referendum process
• Potentially conflict with school finance law — school districts operate under a state-mandated funding formula that in some cases requires specific tax rates

Implementation would require statutory changes governing local taxation authority — and potentially constitutional amendments depending on how the requirement is structured.

What Is Already in Place: SB 2 (2019)

Texas already passed significant property tax reform in 2019. Senate Bill 2 requires local governments that want to raise property tax revenue above the 3.5% “no new revenue” rate to hold an automatic election. School districts face a 2.5% threshold.

Proposition 2 signals that Republican primary voters believe these thresholds should be eliminated entirely — replacing the current tiered system with a universal voter-approval requirement for any increase whatsoever.

What Would It Take to Implement

Implementing Proposition 2 would require statutory changes governing local taxation authority— specifically amendments to the Texas Tax Code and potentially the Local Government Code. Depending on how the requirement is drafted, it could also require a constitutional amendment ratified by statewide voters.

The 2027 legislative session is the earliest window for any legislation. Watch for bills filed in early 2027 expanding the existing rollback election trigger to cover all property tax increases.

Connection to Proposition 1

Propositions 1 and 2 work together as a paired strategy. Proposition 1 seeks to eliminate property taxes over six years. Proposition 2 seeks to lock down any increases in the interim — ensuring that while the phase-out is debated and implemented, no taxing entity can raise rates without explicit voter consent.

For full context on the property tax phase-out plan, see our companion article: Texas Republican Primary Proposition 1: Property Tax Phase-Out Explained.

FAQs

Did Proposition 2 pass? 

Yes. Proposition 2 passed in the March 3, 2026 Republican primary.

Does this change my local government’s ability to raise taxes right now? 

No. The proposition is non-binding. Existing law — SB 2 from 2019 — still governs. That law requires voter approval only when increases exceed 3.5%.

What is the difference between Proposition 2 and current Texas law? 

Current law requires elections only when increases exceed 3.5%. Proposition 2 would require elections for any increase — no threshold.

When could this become law? 

The earliest possible window is the 2027 Texas legislative session, opening January 2027. Constitutional changes would then require a statewide voter ratification election.

Would this affect school districts? 

Yes — school districts are local taxing entities and would be covered. This has significant implications for how school budgets are approved and funded under the existing state school finance formula.

Published: March 5, 2026 This article is for informational and educational purposes only. Proposition results are non-binding advisory measures. Any policy changes require future legislative action.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah