Relating to requirements and procedures in the contest of an election on a proposed constitutional amendment.
Summary
SB 1539 revises the procedures for contesting an election on a proposed constitutional amendment in Texas. The bill keeps a filed contest from automatically delaying implementation of a constitutional amendment that has already been approved by a majority of voters, while preserving the ability to challenge the election in court. It also adds deadlines intended to move these cases more quickly through the courts, including a 30-day deadline for written rulings on pretrial motions, a 180-day deadline for the trial court’s judgment, and a 60-day deadline for final appellate disposition if there is an appeal.
The bill also updates the judgment and post-judgment process by requiring the court to direct the governor to declare the election valid or void, as appropriate, within 10 days after the judgment becomes final. It applies only to contests filed on or after the bill’s effective date, September 1, 2025, and preserves prior law for contests already filed before then.
Impact
SB 1539 amends Section 233.014 of the Texas Election Code, changing the legal framework for contests of constitutional amendment elections. The bill affects contestants, trial courts, appellate courts, the secretary of state, and the governor by shortening timelines and removing language that previously delayed official declaration of results until a contest was finally resolved. Its practical effect is to speed resolution of election contests while allowing approved constitutional amendments to take effect without waiting for litigation to conclude.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill, with the Senate recording 29 yeas and 2 nays on third reading and on suspension of the three-day rule. No committee transcript is available, but the procedural votes indicate the measure moved with strong bipartisan or near-unanimous backing and limited opposition. The bill’s progress to a House committee report sent to Calendars also suggests it advanced without major procedural resistance.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the balance between finality and judicial review. Supporters likely favor faster implementation of voter-approved constitutional amendments and tighter court deadlines to prevent prolonged uncertainty, while opponents may be concerned that shortening litigation timelines could make it harder to fully litigate election irregularities. The bill’s removal of language that delayed official declaration until a contest was resolved may also be viewed as limiting the practical effect of a challenge, even though the contest itself remains available.
A resolution to affirm the constitutional right of the people of Michigan to propose amendments to the Michigan Constitution and to approve or reject those amendments, including constitutional amendments that impact federal elections, such as Proposal 3 of 2018 and Proposal 2 of 2022.