Executive Summary

Texas House Joint Resolution 4 (“HJR 4”) proposes a state constitutional amendment to permanently ban certain taxes on securities trading and stock exchanges. Passed by the Legislature in the 2025 session and slated to go before Texas voters on November 4, 2025, HJR 4 reflects a proactive measure to cement Texas’s reputation as a tax-friendly jurisdiction for capital markets. If approved by voters, this amendment would prohibit the Texas Legislature from ever enacting two types of taxes:[1]

• A tax on securities transactions – essentially forbidding any state financial transaction tax on the purchase or sale of securities when executed through a registered securities market operator (often referred to as a stock transfer tax or trading tax).
• An occupation tax on registered securities market operators meaning a special tax aimed at entities like stock exchanges, broker-dealers, clearing agencies (clearinghouses), alternative trading systems, trade reporting facilities, and other similar securities market participants would be prohibited.

By elevating this ban to the state constitution, Texas aims to provide ultimate assurance to exchanges and investors that the state will remain free of taxes that could raise trading costs or burden financial intermediaries. The motivations are clear: during the COVID-19 pandemic, other states (notably New York and New Jersey) floated proposals to tax stock trades, prompting concerns that such taxes would “raise transaction costs, decrease trading volume, and lower asset prices, negatively impacting all investors including 401(k)s and pensions.”[2] HJR 4 is Texas’s answer to those concerns – effectively declaring that such taxes will have no place in Texas, now or in the future.

 Key highlights of HJR 4 include:

• Sweeping Protection for the Financial Sector: The amendment’s definitions cover a broad range of financial actors – from national stock exchanges and alternative trading systems to brokers, dealers, and clearing agencies – ensuring no such entity could be singled out for a special state tax on their trades or business operations.[3] It would provide a comprehensive shield for the securities trading ecosystem.
• No Impact on General Business Taxes: Importantly, HJR 4 would not exempt financial companies from standard taxes of general applicability. The amendment would explicitly allow Texas to continue levying general business taxes (such as the franchise tax, sales tax, and insurance taxes) while barring any new targeted taxes on trading activity or on operating an exchange – a distinction that preserves Texas’s revenue flexibility while delivering a clear promise to the industry. [4]
• Legislative and Public Endorsement: HJR 4 enjoyed strong support in the Legislature (clearing the House 111–31 and Senate 28–3),[5] reflecting a bipartisan recognition of the economic stakes. It will become law only if a majority of voters approve the constitutional amendment in the November 2025 ballot. Given Texas’s historical voter approval rate for pro-business amendments, prospects appear favorable, but businesses should watch the election outcome closely.
• Strategic Rationale – Attracting Market Relocations: The amendment’s backers explicitly tie it to a strategy of attracting financial business from high-tax or uncertain-tax environments. Citing the instance when New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq reportedly considered relocating to Texas amid talk of transaction taxes in the Northeast, [6] Texas lawmakers want to remove any lingering doubt for companies eyeing the Lone Star State. HJR 4, if approved by voters, coupled with SB 1058’s franchise tax relief, would represent a one-two punch aimed at making Texas arguably the most tax-stable home for stock exchanges and trading platforms in the nation.

For corporate and investment communities, the implications of HJR 4 are significant. It would lock in a long-term competitive advantage for Texas: a constitutional guarantee that trading in Texas will not be subject to the kind of taxes that some jurisdictions have mulled. Businesses can plan with the certainty that Texas will not “change the rules” by imposing a transaction tax in the future. In practical terms, HJR 4 can influence decisions on where to list securities, base trading operations, or invest in exchange infrastructure, all to the benefit of entities choosing Texas. That said, it remains crucial to engage in the upcoming public vote and to stay informed on final ratification. Assuming it is approved, HJR 4 will become part of the Texas Constitution shortly after the November 2025 election, heralding a new era of constitutional tax protection for the financial sector in Texas.

Background

Catalyst: The specter of financial transaction taxes elsewhere: The genesis of HJR 4 lies in events outside Texas as much as within. In 2020–2021, amid the fiscal strains of the COVID-19 pandemic, lawmakers in New York and New Jersey floated proposals to impose a financial transaction tax (FTT) on securities trades executed through exchanges in their states. [7] These proposals immediately alarmed market participants. Financial exchanges and large market-makers warned that even a small tax on each trade could prompt them to relocate operations, given the electronic and easily movable nature of modern trading platforms. Notably, both the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq openly considered contingency plans to move some trading infrastructure to more tax-friendly locales (with Texas frequently mentioned as a prime candidate). [8] Although the New York and New Jersey proposals were ultimately abandoned, they served as a wake-up call. The mere possibility of an FTT risked driving away financial business and “causing New York and Nasdaq to consider relocating to Texas.” [9]

At the same time, economic analysts sounded broader warnings: A 2021 KPMG report highlighted the flurry of FTT ideas nationwide, and the Tax Foundation concluded that such taxes would likely increase costs for investors and “hinder savings” by reducing returns on portfolios.[10] Ordinary Texans with 401(k)s and IRAs were among those who could indirectly feel the pinch if trading costs went up.[11] In short, the stage was set where opposing financial transaction taxes became not just an industry issue but a populist one, aligning the interest of Main Street retirees with Wall Street traders.

Texas’s preemptive strike: Against this backdrop, Texas lawmakers saw a strategic opening. By constitutionally banning FTTs and related occupation taxes in Texas, the state could differentiate itself and send an unequivocal message of stability to the financial world. The author of HJR 4, Rep. Morgan Meyer, encapsulated this intent in the resolution’s statement of purpose: Given the scare from New York/New Jersey, Texas wanted to ensure “the risk remains” zero for such taxes here.[12] Timing was fortuitous: the 89th Legislature (2025) coincided with Texas’s broader corporate law overhaul and the emergence of a homegrown exchange initiative (TXSE). Lawmakers fast-tracked HJR 4 through the House Ways & Means Committee and onto the floor, emphasizing that enshrining the ban in the Texas Constitution would put it beyond the reach of shifting legislative politics. This is consistent with Texas’s history of using its constitution to lock in key tax policies – for example, Texas has long had a constitutional prohibition on personal income taxes (since 1993, with an even stricter amendment passed in 2019), reflecting a tendency to decide major tax questions by popular vote.

Support from the nascent Texas exchange and industry: During legislative hearings on HJR 4, representatives of the Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE) testified in support.[13] It is easy to see why: a constitutional guarantee of no transaction taxes would be a powerful selling point for a new exchange trying to attract listings and trading volume. If a company lists on TXSE or if a broker routes orders there, they could do so knowing that—if HJR 4 is approved—Texas would never levy a penny on those trades. In essence, TXSE could market itself as “the exchange with a constitutionally locked-in tax advantage.” The involvement of TXSE and its high-profile backers (including major financial firms as noted earlier) likely helped underscore the economic development potential of HJR 4. Additionally, broader business groups like the Texas Association of Business and tort reform advocates (who champion pro-growth legal reforms) publicly endorsed the measure as part of keeping Texas’s “competitive edge” in finance.[14]

Debate and opposition: HJR 4 was not without critics, though they were relatively few. Opposition came not so much from those who wanted to impose a transaction tax (indeed, no Texas leader was seriously proposing one), but from those concerned about fiscal flexibility. For instance, the True Texas Project, a conservative grassroots group, argued against “binding future legislatures” with such a ban.[15] Opponents suggested that while no one likes new taxes, crises can arise where having the option of a securities transaction tax might be useful to generate revenue or curb speculative excess. The House Research Organization’s committee report summarized this argument: “HJR 4 would make it harder for future legislatures to make tax policy… The state may experience an economic downturn and could benefit from having a securities transaction or occupation tax to raise revenues at that time.”[16]  Essentially, the opposing view was about prudence – not closing off a potential tool. However, given Texas’s robust economy and strong revenue streams from other sources (like sales taxes and oil & gas taxes), the majority in the Legislature found this argument unpersuasive compared to the immediate benefits of the amendment.

It is worth noting that the Texas Constitution already requires voter approval for new statewide taxes on individuals (as per the 2019 amendment prohibiting personal income taxes without a referendum), and generally Texas has a high bar for enacting new taxes. HJR 4 would extend this tradition of direct democracy on tax issues to the realm of financial transactions and exchange operations.

Legislative outcome and next steps: With comfortable margins, HJR 4 passed the House on April 1, 2025, and the Senate on April 29, 2025.[17] It was officially filed with the Secretary of State on May 5, 2025.[18] The resolution now heads to the general electorate. The ballot proposition will plainly state the amendment as: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the legislature from enacting a law imposing an occupation tax on certain entities that enter into transactions conveying securities or imposing a tax on certain securities transactions.” [19] This somewhat technical wording will be what voters see; public education efforts may be needed to convey that this is about banning stock transaction taxes. If a simple majority of voters vote “Yes,” the Texas Constitution (Section 30, Article VIII) will be amended accordingly, likely coming into effect shortly after the election (Texas amendments typically take effect upon the official canvass of votes or a date specified in the resolution, which in this case is not explicitly deferred beyond the election).

In summary, the background of HJR 4 is a story of Texas seizing an opportunity to bolster its standing in the financial sector by offering ironclad tax certainty. It emerged in response to external threats (FTT proposals in other states) and internal aspirations (the launch of Texas’s own exchange), and it exemplifies Texas’s broader philosophical approach: using constitutional amendments to hardwire a low-tax, business-friendly environment. The success of this strategy now hinges on voter approval, but given the strong alignment of interests – from pension savers to Wall Street firms – the amendment appears positioned to garner widespread support.

Analysis

Legal mechanism of HJR 4: HJR 4 would add a new Section 30 to Article VIII of the Texas Constitution (the article dealing with taxation).[20] The text of the proposed Section 30 is concise but packed with defined terms. In essence, it imposes two prohibitions on the state legislature:

• Ban on occupation taxes for financial market entities: “The legislature may not enact a law that imposes an occupation tax on a registered securities market operator.” [21] In Texas parlance, an “occupation tax” is typically a tax on the privilege of doing business in a particular field (akin to a business license tax or a sector-specific levy). This clause means the legislature cannot create a special tax that singles out stock exchanges or related financial actors for doing business. For example, Texas could not impose a unique annual license fee or gross receipts tax solely on stock exchanges (beyond the generally applicable franchise tax). This ensures that companies like exchanges, brokerages, or clearing firms will be taxed only under broad-based tax schemes, not punitive or extraordinary taxes due to the nature of their business.
• Ban on securities transaction taxes: “The legislature may not enact a law that imposes… a tax on a securities transaction conducted by a registered securities market operator.” [22] This language squarely targets any form of financial transaction tax (FTT) on trades. A “securities transaction” is defined broadly in the amendment to include the purchase or sale of a security, or any contract to do so, as well as services to process or clear such trades.[23] The breadth of this definition means it would cover not only a per-share stock transfer tax, but also any levy on trade executions, trade reporting, or clearing functions. In effect, whether a stock, bond, or derivative is traded on an exchange, an alternative trading system, or other regulated market, Texas could not impose a tax on that event.

The term “registered securities market operator” is critical to understanding scope. HJR 4 defines this term expansively: it includes national securities exchanges (like NYSE, Nasdaq, or a future TXSE), self-regulatory organizations, financial institutions, brokers, dealers, clearing agencies, transfer agents, alternative trading systems, commodity exchanges, derivatives clearing organizations, trade reporting facilities, and even facilities or affiliates of all the above. Essentially, if an entity is subject to SEC or CFTC oversight as part of the trading market’s infrastructure, it falls under this definition. By drafting it this way, the amendment avoids loopholes. For instance, if trading were to migrate from traditional exchanges to some new platform or if a trading firm internalized trades, the definition is likely to still cover those scenarios (as long as the entities are federally regulated). In practical terms, any significant player in facilitating securities trades in Texas would be shielded from both occupation taxes and taxes on the trades themselves.

Exceptions and what remains taxable: A notable feature of HJR 4 is the explicit list of what is not prohibited by the amendment – effectively a savings clause to ensure the state’s general taxing powers are not unintentionally hamstrung.[24] The amendment clarifies it does not stop the legislature from imposing or altering:

• General business taxes measured by business activity (the franchise tax falls here).[25]
• Taxes on the production of minerals (e.g., oil and gas severance taxes).[26]
• Taxes on insurance premiums.[27]
• Sales and use taxes on goods or services.[28]
• Fees for processing documents (this refers to things like filing fees, perhaps relevant to business registrations or securities filings).[29]
• Nor does it bar changing the rate of a tax that existed as of January 1, 2026 (so, for example, the legislature could still adjust the franchise tax rate or sales tax rate in the future).[30]

These carve-outs were likely included to avoid any argument that HJR 4 would create a special carve-out or favoritism beyond its intent. In other words, financial companies remain subject to all the normal taxes every other company pays – they just gain protection from new taxes targeted specifically at them or their transactions. For instance, a stock exchange in Texas would still pay property taxes on its offices, franchise taxes on its taxable margin (albeit reduced by SB 1058’s provisions), and sales taxes on any taxable purchases it makes. In other words, a Texas-based exchange would never face an extra tax per trade or a unique “exchange operator fee” imposed by state law. Notably, the amendment’s text explicitly permits the existing franchise tax (as a “general business tax measured by business activity”), underscoring that the current franchise tax still applies – HJR 4 is not a loophole to let financial firms operate tax-free. These companies will continue to pay all the normal broad-based taxes that other businesses pay; the amendment simply guarantees they will not be singled out by any new tax on trades or their role in the market.

Constitutional significance and durability: By placing this ban in the Texas Constitution, it gains a high level of permanence. A regular statute can be amended or repealed by a future legislature with a simple majority vote. In contrast, a constitutional provision (once approved by voters) can only be repealed or altered by another constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval. This means that even if political winds shift or a future government in Texas is tempted by a transaction tax as a revenue source, they could not implement it without clearing extremely high hurdles. For businesses, that equates to long-term certainty. We saw a precedent in Texas: the constitutional ban on personal income taxes (Article VIII, Section 24) essentially locks in that Texas will not tax individual income unless the public consents. HJR 4 would do the same for Wall Street taxes.

One might ask, does any other state have such a constitutional provision? As of 2025, no major state is known to have a constitutional ban specifically on financial transaction taxes. This is a novel step, underscoring Texas’s willingness to differentiate itself. It is also a direct contrast to states like New York, where not only is there no ban, but an old stock transfer tax is technically still on the books (albeit rebated at 100%). Texas is, in effect, saying: we will not even allow the option of reinstituting such a tax.

Interplay with federal law and regulation: HJR 4 was careful to tie definitions to federal regulatory terms (like referring to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 definitions).[31] This was likely done to ensure clarity and avoid conflict. There is no indication that HJR 4 raises any constitutional issues with federal law – states generally have the power to decide their own taxation policies, and choosing not to tax is certainly within state prerogative. In fact, by not taxing certain activities, Texas avoids any dormant commerce clause issues that might arise if it tried to tax out-of-state transactions. HJR 4 cements a tax-friendly posture and is legally straightforward: it restricts the state’s own taxing authority and does not mandate any action from businesses or individuals.

Economic and policy analysis: From a policy standpoint, HJR 4 embodies a bet that the long-term economic growth from attracting financial firms outweighs the foregone possibility of a future tax. Texas legislators are effectively prioritizing market growth and volume (and the ancillary benefits like jobs, spending, and ancillary businesses that come with financial sector expansion) over a hypothetical revenue source. The Tax Foundation research cited in legislative materials supports the notion that financial transaction taxes tend to reduce trading activity and can have broader negative economic consequences.[32] By banning them, Texas aligns with the view that such taxes are counterproductive. Moreover, by banning “occupation taxes” on market operators, Texas signals that it will not treat the financial industry as a cash cow or a special target—a stance likely to be well-received by companies deciding where to locate operations.

Critics’ concerns about tying the legislature’s hands in a downturn are worth noting: if Texas ever needed emergency revenue, one could argue that tapping the massive volume of financial transactions could raise a lot of money with a very low rate. However, this runs counter to Texas’s general tax philosophy and the amendment’s overwhelming support suggests the political calculus is that even in hard times, Texans would prefer alternative measures. And practically, if a fiscal emergency were dire enough, the legislature could still propose another constitutional amendment to repeal or suspend this prohibition, subject to voter approval. So the state is not utterly locked in—rather, the bar is raised to ensure such a tax would only happen if it truly had broad political consensus.

Comparative advantage: If HJR 4 is approved, Texas can boast a trifecta: no personal income tax, no financial transaction taxes, and a favorable franchise tax regime for exchanges (per SB 1058). This combination would be unmatched among states with significant financial centers. States like Florida and Nevada share the trait of no personal income tax, but they do not have specific provisions about transaction taxes. New York, Illinois, California – all major financial hubs – not only have state income taxes but have entertained ideas of taxing trades or high finance in various ways. Texas’s constitutional ban could thus become a key part of its marketing to the financial industry: it is not just a promise of the current legislature, it is enshrined by the will of the people of Texas. That is a powerful statement of stability.

In sum, HJR 4’s legal architecture is straightforward but profound. It writes into the state’s highest law a permanent no-admittance sign for any form of Wall Street tax. The amendment is carefully drafted to cover the breadth of the modern trading ecosystem while reserving normal taxing powers. Its success now depends on voter ratification, but its mere passage by the legislature is already influencing perceptions—signals that Texas is serious about courting the financial sector for the long haul.

Implications and Considerations for Businesses

If HJR 4 is adopted by voters, the implications for corporate and financial clients will be both immediate in terms of confidence and long-term strategic positioning, albeit with no new compliance burdens (since it prohibits something rather than imposing something). Below are the key implications and recommended considerations:

1. Long-Term Tax Certainty for Financial Operations: The most salient implication of HJR 4 is the peace of mind it provides. Companies operating in the securities and trading business can be confident that Texas will not spring a new transaction tax or industry-specific levy on them in the future. This certainty is particularly valuable for exchanges and trading platforms whose business models depend on high-volume, low-margin transactions. For such businesses, even a tiny tax per transaction can drastically alter profitability or trading behavior. Knowing that Texas’s constitution itself safeguards against that scenario allows for more stable long-term planning. Corporate clients should incorporate this into their risk assessments and strategic plans. For instance, when performing a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) on operating in various jurisdictions, the constitutional ban on taxes in Texas squarely falls under a Strength/Opportunity for Texas. We recommend explicitly mentioning this factor in any board-level discussions about location strategy for trading operations or data centers. In contrast, firms in New York or other financial centers might list the potential of an FTT as a risk factor (indeed, some public company filings in finance have noted this legislative risk in other states); relocating or expanding in Texas can mitigate that risk.

2. Attraction of New Market Entrants and Relocations: HJR 4 will likely enhance Texas’s magnetism for financial market infrastructure. Exchanges, electronic trading platforms, and clearing organizations may find Texas uniquely appealing. We may see, for example, existing smaller stock exchanges or emerging cryptocurrency/digital asset exchanges choose Texas as a base to leverage the constitutional guarantee. Companies that operate alternative trading systems or broker-dealer internalizers could consider moving significant parts of their trading apparatus to Texas. For clients exploring such moves, it will be important to evaluate all facets (regulatory, talent pool, technology infrastructure) – Texas already has major cities like Dallas and Austin with growing tech/finance talent, and the state is investing in that growth. The tax angle provided by HJR 4 (together with SB 1058) could tip the scales for those on the fence. Strategic recommendation: Companies should task their strategy or finance teams with conducting scenario analyses: “What would be the impact if a financial transaction tax were implemented in State X vs. if we operate in Texas where it’s constitutionally banned?” The outcomes of such analysis often favor Texas dramatically in an environment where other states raise costs. Even though no other state currently has an FTT, the mere possibility (as was seen in NY/NJ) is enough to warrant contingency planning. Texas, through HJR 4, essentially removes the need for such contingency within its borders.

3. Enhanced Appeal for Listings and Investor Community: It is not just the back-end trading firms that benefit; public companies and investors could see indirect advantages. If HJR 4 is approved, a company that lists its stock on a Texas-based exchange (for example, the future TXSE or NYSE Texas) can assure its shareholders that trading in its stock on that exchange will never be subject to a Texas transaction tax. While federal regulations largely ensure fluid trading across markets, having a primary listing in a jurisdiction sworn off transaction taxes might become a selling point to companies concerned about shareholder transaction costs. Investors, particularly large institutional investors managing pension funds or index funds, might prefer trading in an environment where there is no friction of taxes. In practice, because trading is global and electronic, the benefit might manifest as Texas exchanges attracting more liquidity if ever another state did impose a tax. For now, it is a psychological and marketing edge. Actionable insight for corporate clients: Those involved in investor relations or considering where to list securities (IPO or exchange listing switches) should monitor how the market perceives Texas’s stance. If TXSE or NYSE Texas begin advertising “no transaction taxes – ever” as a feature, companies might incorporate that into their decision matrix for listings or dual-listings. Legal advisors can help by ensuring any disclosure or communication about this advantage is accurate and by gauging any regulatory nuances (for instance, confirming that trading on a Texas exchange by non-Texas residents would not inadvertently trigger something elsewhere – currently it would not, but careful due diligence is always wise).

5. Legislative and Fiscal Monitoring: With transaction taxes off the table, one implication is that if Texas ever faces budget shortfalls, it will look to other tax levers. Corporate clients should be aware that Texas might adjust other taxes in lieu of ever considering an FTT. For example, the state could raise the franchise tax rate or broaden its base, or increase sales taxes (as those remain permissible and are in fact Texas’s primary revenue source). This means that while HJR 4 insulates financial transactions from taxation, financial firms will still need to pay attention to general tax policy. A robust presence of financial companies in Texas (should many relocate) could, for instance, lead to overall greater franchise tax collections, or conversely, if Texas needed revenue, it would have to gather it through means like property or sales taxes which affect all businesses. Strategy point: Companies benefiting from HJR 4’s protections should continue to engage with Texas policymakers on overall tax policy to ensure the state remains fiscally healthy without burdening businesses in other ways. The best outcome for industry is a virtuous cycle: the presence of more exchanges and traders boosts the economy and tax base broadly (through jobs, spending, etc.), offsetting any revenue Texas forgoes by not taxing trades, thereby keeping overall taxes low.

6. Advocacy and Public Perception: For firms in the financial sector, HJR 4 represents a public commitment by Texas to welcome them. This can have public relations benefits: relocating or expanding in Texas can be framed positively as moving to a state that values free enterprise and investors (as evidenced by its constitutional protections).[33] We saw, for example, in the NYSE Texas launch press release, the CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group praised Texas’s business climate, and NYSE’s president lauded Texas’s “commitment to supporting the innovation of U.S. capital markets”.[34] Companies might similarly find it beneficial to highlight their Texas presence as a competitive advantage. On the client advisory side, we would assist in crafting messaging that is accurate – noting that Texas has these protections – and perhaps encouraging clients to participate in Texas’s burgeoning financial community (e.g., join industry groups or chambers that are shaping the next steps, such as perhaps advocating for further legal reforms or ensuring the Business Court and other systems are robust).

One specific actionable suggestion: clients may want to support voter education efforts about HJR 4 in 2025. This could be through partnerships with trade associations or sponsoring neutral information campaigns. Given the technical nature of the amendment, educating the public that “this is to ban a tax on stock trades which helps protect your retirement accounts and bring jobs to Texas” could help ensure a favorable vote. While direct corporate lobbying for a ballot measure must be done carefully (and in compliance with election laws), many companies choose to be involved in issues that affect their business. The passage of HJR 4 is in the clear interest of many of our clients, so a coordinated but compliant advocacy (perhaps through a coalition) could be considered.

7. Contingency Planning if Not Passed: In the unlikely event that voters reject HJR 4, businesses should understand the practical effect. Legally, a rejection simply means the constitutional status quo remains – the legislature would regain the theoretical ability to impose an FTT or occupation tax in the future. We do not interpret a failed amendment as an indication that such taxes are forthcoming; Texas political culture remains opposed to them. However, without constitutional protection, the industry would have to rely on political lobbying to block any future proposals. If HJR 4 fails, our advice to clients would be to double-down on traditional advocacy: maintain dialogue with legislators to continue opposing any future tax proposals and perhaps try for a similar amendment in a subsequent session (sometimes amendments fail on first try and pass later). Corporations might also in that scenario want contractual assurances or escape clauses if they relocate (for example, some might negotiate with the state for economic incentive agreements that promise no new taxes as part of a relocation deal). Those nuances can be addressed if needed. At present, we emphasize that the more likely path is passage, but prudent businesses always consider the Plan B.

In conclusion, HJR 4 stands to become a cornerstone of Texas’s value proposition to the financial industry. Its implications for corporate and business clients are overwhelmingly positive: reduced uncertainty, potentially lower costs of doing business, and a strong signal that Texas is aligned with their growth. Clients should leverage this development by considering Texas in their expansion plans, adjusting internal risk assessments to reflect Texas’s unique guarantees, and staying engaged in the state’s policy landscape to capitalize on these advantages. Together with SB 1058’s immediate tax benefits and other legal reforms, HJR 4’s constitutional shield would make Texas not just a competitive choice, but possibly a preferred choice for the next generation of stock exchanges, trading firms, and financial innovators.

---

[1] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (enrolled), https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HJR4/id/3224995.

[2] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[3] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[4] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[5] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[6] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[7] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[8] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[9] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[10] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[11] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[12] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[13] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[14] Texans for Lawsuit Reform, TLR Weekly News Roundup: May 21, 2025, Texans for Lawsuit Reform (May 21, 2025), https://www.tortreform.com/newsletters/tlr-weekly-news-roundup-may-21-2025/.

[15] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[16] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[17] Victoria Antram, Texas Voters Will Decide on an Amendment to Ban Taxes on Securities Transfers and Certain Financial Transactions in November, Ballotpedia News (Apr. 30, 2025), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/04/30/texas-voters-will-decide-on-an-amendment-to-ban-taxes-on-securities-transfers-and-certain-financial-transactions-in-november/.

[18] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (enrolled), https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HJR4/id/3224995.

[19] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (enrolled), https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HJR4/id/3224995.

[20] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (enrolled), https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HJR4/id/3224995.

[21] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[22] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (enrolled), https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HJR4/id/3224995.

[23] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[24] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[25] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[26] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[27] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[28] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[29] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[30] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (enrolled), https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HJR4/id/3224995.

[31] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[32] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2025) (House Committee Report), https://legiscan.com/TX/supplement/HJR4/id/551830.

[33] Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., NYSE Texas Opens for Business, Business Wire (Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250331173085/en/NYSE-Texas-Opens-for-Business.

[34] Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., NYSE Texas Opens for Business, Business Wire (Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250331173085/en/NYSE-Texas-Opens-for-Business.