2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

2025 · Regular session · Senate bill

SB914

SB914 gives two specifically defined groups of local governments a temporary option to move their general officer elections to the November uniform election date.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to authorizing certain cities and counties to change the date on which their general election for officers is held.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists Senate author(s): Blanco. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

SB914 gives two specifically defined groups of local governments a temporary option to move their general officer elections to the November uniform election date.
The city provision requires all of these conditions: population of 9,000 or fewer; located predominantly in a county with a total area under 6,200 square miles; a council-manager form of government; and a general officer election currently held on a date other than the November uniform date.
The incorporated existing rules require the governing body to adjust terms of office to the new election date.
The bill received the required two-thirds votes and became effective immediately when signed May 19, 2025, rather than on its fallback September 1 date.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

SB914 gives two specifically defined groups of local governments a temporary option to move their general officer elections to the November uniform election date. It does not move an election automatically or authorize every city and county to change dates. An eligible governing body must make the change no later than December 31, 2026; both new authorizing subsections expire January 1, 2027. Final act, section 1.

The city provision requires all of these conditions: population of 9,000 or fewer; located predominantly in a county with a total area under 6,200 square miles; a council-manager form of government; and a general officer election currently held on a date other than the November uniform date. The county provision separately requires population of at least 425,000, adjacency to a county with at least 3.3 million residents, a portion of the San Jacinto River within the county, and a general officer election held on a date other than the November uniform date. New subsections (f) and (g).

The incorporated existing rules require the governing body to adjust terms of office to the new election date. A home-rule city may implement an authorized change or provide for electing all governing-body members at the same election by resolution, superseding conflicting charter election-date or staggered-term provisions. The statute also says a city member’s constitutional holdover to align the term with the new date does not constitute the specified constitutional vacancy. These are transition rules, not a new election for every office on a date selected by an individual official. The November uniform date is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Subsections (b)–(d); Uniform election dates.

The bill received the required two-thirds votes and became effective immediately when signed May 19, 2025, rather than on its fallback September 1 date. The expiration ends these temporary change-date authorizations; the act does not direct an already moved election to revert automatically in 2027. Effective-date clause and vote certifications; History.

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill was drafted as an amendment of the earlier city provision, replacing its under-4,800-square-mile county threshold with under 6,200 and moving its change deadline from December 2024 to December 2026. The earlier provision expired January 1, 2025. The Senate substitute instead added a new subsection (f) rather than amending that expired subsection, with the same proposed new city conditions and dates. The substitute, engrossed and House committee texts match. Earlier provision and expiration; All five versions.

All three indexed floor amendments were read. House second-reading amendment 1, offered by Toth and others, adopted April 28, added the county provision; its conditions and expiration survive unchanged as final subsection (g). Reynolds’s April 29 third-reading amendment 1 would have removed the old December 2016 deadline for the general political-subdivision provision, excepting counties and municipal utility districts; it was withdrawn. Guillen’s third-reading amendment 2 would have added a November-election option without an expiration date for a border municipality with more than 85,000 residents hosting the Texas Citrus Fiesta, with no later move away from November; it failed. Neither unsuccessful proposal is part of SB914’s final law.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Qualifying governing bodies gain a time-limited scheduling option, while voters and officeholders may be affected by a changed election date and adjusted terms if the option is used. Actual local action and whether any named jurisdiction meets every condition must be checked separately; this briefing does not infer eligibility from a city or county name. No turnout increase or election-cost saving is guaranteed. Eligibility conditions; Term-adjustment rules.

The April 30 fiscal note for the bill as passed by the second house anticipates no state fiscal implication and no significant local fiscal implication. All four indexed fiscal notes were read and use the same conclusions. They do not quantify local savings, administrative expenses or voter participation effects.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.