2025 · Regular session · Senate bill
SB985
SB985 broadens when county election precincts may be combined, with different limits for redistricting and polling-place problems.
Official caption: Relating to the combination of certain election precincts.
Official report lists Senate author(s): Bettencourt, Paxton. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
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.
- SB985 broadens when county election precincts may be combined, with different limits for redistricting and polling-place problems.
- After redistricting: if implementing a redistricting plan creates county election precincts with fewer than 3,000 registered voters, the commissioners court for a general or special election—or the party’s county executive committee for a primary—may combine precincts to avoid unreasonable equipment, supply and personnel expenditures.
- When no suitable polling place can be secured: in a county not participating in countywide polling, the commissioners court, on the county election board’s recommendation, may combine precincts for a general or special election requiring county precincts.
- Both routes operate notwithstanding section 42.005’s usual district-boundary restrictions.
What does it do?
SB985 broadens when county election precincts may be combined, with different limits for redistricting and polling-place problems. The governor signed it May 24, 2025; it took effect September 1, 2025. History; Final law.
After redistricting: if implementing a redistricting plan creates county election precincts with fewer than 3,000 registered voters, the commissioners court for a general or special election—or the party’s county executive committee for a primary—may combine precincts to avoid unreasonable equipment, supply and personnel expenditures. This route is not limited by county population or participation in countywide polling. The combined precinct is subject to section 42.006’s maximum of 5,000 registered voters; that section excludes names marked “S” or similarly noted from its voter calculation. Final law, section 42.0051(a)–(b); Pre-act section 42.006.
When no suitable polling place can be secured: in a county not participating in countywide polling, the commissioners court, on the county election board’s recommendation, may combine precincts for a general or special election requiring county precincts. A party’s county executive committee may do so for a primary requiring county precincts. The commissioners court must be unable to secure a suitable location, and the combined location must adequately serve the voters. This separate route has a 10,000-registered-voter limit. The old restriction to counties below 1.2 million people is removed. Final law, section 42.0051(c)–(d); Pre-act section 42.0051; Pre-act section 43.031.
Both routes operate notwithstanding section 42.005’s usual district-boundary restrictions. The existing prohibitions on diluting protected groups’ voting strength or representation, or discouraging their participation because of polling location or other factors, remain. For presiding and alternate election judges, the combined precinct is treated as one precinct and Chapter 32 appointment procedures apply. Final law, section 42.0051(e)–(f); Pre-act section 42.005.
What changed along the way?
The introduced and Senate committee versions proposed a redistricting threshold below 500 voters, plus a 500–750-voter route in counties with at least 250,000 people. Bettencourt’s adopted April 2 Senate amendment replaced these with the below-3,000 threshold, removed the special 500–750 route, expanded the polling-location route to primaries and larger counties, and added the single-precinct judge rule. Those substantive changes survive in the final law. Senate amendment; Five bill versions; Final law.
Hayes’s adopted May 6 House amendment rewrote the polling-location subsection to apply its non-countywide-polling condition clearly to general/special elections and primaries and removed a leftover cross-reference to the deleted subsection. The Senate concurred May 12. These are the only two indexed amendments, and both were compared with the final text rather than treated as final law merely because they were adopted. House amendment; Amendment index; 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?
Counties and party election administrators gain flexibility to combine qualifying precincts and potentially reduce election expenses. Voters could use a combined location, but the act does not itself identify which precincts will combine or calculate changes in travel time. The adequate-service requirement for the polling-location route and the retained protected-group safeguards constrain the decisions; a cost-saving objective does not erase those limits. Final law.
All four indexed fiscal notes anticipate no state fiscal implication and possible effects on counties choosing to combine precincts to reduce equipment, supplies and personnel expenditures. They give no dollar estimate or guaranteed savings. May 7 final-stage fiscal note; Introduced note; Engrossed note.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.
