Relating to requirements and procedures in the contest of an election on a proposed constitutional amendment.
Summary
HB 5116 revises the Election Code procedures for contesting an election on a proposed constitutional amendment. The bill keeps a constitutional amendment in effect after it is approved by voters unless a contestant obtains a court order showing a substantial likelihood of success, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of harms, and that an injunction is in the public interest. It also adds deadlines intended to speed litigation, including a required ruling on pretrial motions within 30 days, a trial date no earlier than 45 days after the election unless requested by the contestant, and a final judgment within 180 days after the election.
The bill further requires the trial court to direct the governor to declare the election valid or void within 10 days after the judgment becomes final, and it shortens the deadline for appellate disposition to 60 days after the judgment becomes final. The changes apply only to contests filed on or after September 1, 2025; earlier-filed contests remain governed by prior law.
Impact
HB 5116 amends Section 233.014 of the Texas Election Code and changes the legal standards and timing rules for lawsuits challenging the results of constitutional amendment elections. It limits the ability of a contest to delay implementation of a voter-approved amendment, imposes expedited court deadlines, and removes prior language that tied official result declaration to final resolution of the contest. The bill affects contestants, courts, the secretary of state, and the governor by streamlining post-election litigation and accelerating final resolution.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a procedural reform to speed up election-contest litigation and reduce uncertainty after constitutional amendment elections. The overall tone is neutral and administrative rather than ideological, with the main emphasis on deadlines, judicial process, and implementation of approved amendments.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the bill’s restriction on halting implementation of a constitutional amendment during a contest, because it makes injunctive relief harder to obtain and favors immediate effect of voter-approved amendments. Another possible issue is the compressed litigation schedule, which may concern contestants who argue that expedited deadlines reduce the time available to develop evidence and pursue appeals. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s goal of certainty and prompt enforcement of election outcomes, while opponents may view it as limiting meaningful judicial review.
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.