Texas House Bill HB 296

Texas 2025 - 89th 2nd C.S.

• Filed: 8/25/25

Caption

Relating to election procedures regarding accepting a voter with a residence address that is not current and the immediate effect of a voter's registration after the registrar's receipt of certain change of address notices.

Summary

HB 296 revises Texas election procedures for voters whose residence address on the registration records is no longer current because they moved within the same county. Under the bill, such a voter may still vote in the precinct where the voter is registered, so long as the voter remains in the county and, when applicable, still lives within the relevant political subdivision or election territory. The bill also updates the statement a voter must complete before being accepted to vote in these circumstances, requiring the voter to affirm the applicable residence requirements and provide the information normally required for voter registration. The bill further changes when a voter’s registration update becomes effective after the registrar receives certain change-of-address notices. Instead of waiting for the change to take effect under the prior timing rules, the bill removes a provision that delayed effectiveness for certain address changes and makes the new rules apply only to change-of-address notices submitted on or after the bill’s effective date. It also provides for immediate effect if the bill receives the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in each chamber, otherwise it takes effect on the standard post-session date.

Impact

HB 296 would amend Sections 15.025 and 63.0011 of the Texas Election Code and repeal Section 15.025(e), changing how election officials handle voters whose address information is outdated after an intraco unty move. The practical effect is to preserve voting eligibility in the voter’s existing precinct under specified conditions while simplifying the paperwork and timing associated with updating registration records. Election administrators, registrars, and voters who move within a county would be directly affected, especially in local and less-than-countywide elections.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded debate, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears administrative and procedural rather than controversial on its face, aimed at clarifying voter acceptance rules and registration timing for address changes. Because no votes or testimony are provided, support or opposition cannot be reliably characterized from the supplied materials.

Contention

The main policy issue raised by the bill is how to balance voter access with registration accuracy when a voter has moved but remains within the same county. Supporters would likely view the bill as a clarification that prevents eligible voters from being turned away due to outdated address records, while opponents might be concerned about weakening address-verification procedures or creating confusion about precinct residency requirements. Another possible point of contention is the removal of the request-to-change-address language from the voting statement, which may be seen as reducing an administrative safeguard even as it streamlines the process.