In my previously published Part 1, I discussed the ambiguous language found in the recently adopted “parents’ responsibilities/rights” constitutional amendment. (Tex. Const. Art. I, §37).
I questioned whether Texas parents would understand their responsibilities and rights without the Texas Supreme Court’s interpretation.
However, when judges interpret ambiguous or unclear language, there is a risk that the personal views and values of judges may be injected into the law.
This thought may have been the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s reversal of its initially expressed willingness to interpret the new constitutional amendment. As a consequence of the Cout’s decision to leave initial interpretation to other governing bodies, parents may be “stuck” with a constitutional provision containing unclear language for an indeterminate period.
In this second part, I will examine the history of the amendment’s adoption to find the source of the amendment’s flawed language. The Texas Legislature’s process marked by hasty decisions and exaggerated claims will be the focus.
I find it hard to imagine a constitutional amendment which should receive greater public scrutiny and discussion than one concerning parents’ rights to raise their children. However, the Texas Legislature in the 2025 session managed to effectively exclude Texas parents from the discussion. For example, when voters entered the voting booth last November, the proposed constitutional amendment was identified as Proposition 15 consisting of a simple “ballot proposition” but not the actual amendment language.
The “ballot proposition” authorized by the legislature stated in enticing language that this was a . . . “constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children.” However, the first line of the actual proposed constitutional amendment passed by the legislature states this is a “constitutional amendment affirming the rights and responsibilities of parents.”
Thus, the ballot proposition, which among other deficiencies did not tell parents that responsibilities were being imposed, could be viewed as a misleading inducement to vote in favor. A small minority of Texas voters approved of this constitutional amendment on Nov. 4, 2025.
The fact that the legislature hurriedly passed this important proposed constitutional amendment with only two weeks remaining in its regular session may account for the ambiguous language in the amendment adopted.
A long pending and legislatively vetted proposed constitutional amendment, HJR 112, was scheduled to be considered by the House on May 12, 2025; however, between May 12, 2025, and May 19, 2025, things drastically changed. HJR 112 was tabled. My reading of the language is that parents’ rights are stated more clearly than the resolution ultimately passed.
Nevertheless, SJR 34, the identical twin of HJR 112 which the House received on March 11, 2025, was considered by a House committee in an unrecorded hearing.
On May 14, 2025, an amendment to SJR 34 was passed and designated as CSSJR 34.
The full House, after a brief 3–4-minute speech and response to questions by Representative Frank, approved CSSJR 34 and sent it back to the Senate.
Despite the substantial language change in the amended version of SJR 34 the Texas Senate approved it without a committee hearing. The full Senate spent about 37 seconds in consideration, including bill sponsor Senator Hughes’ brief supporting speech.
On May 20, 2025, the Texas Senate passed CSSJR 34 (shown as SJR 34 in the Senate Journal) unanimously and sent it to the Secretary of State to be place on the November 2025, ballot.
While 2/3 of the members of each legislative chamber voted to propose the amendment to the voters, the explanation of the reasoning or meaning for the proposed “parents’ responsibilities/ rights” amendment was cursory at best.
Representative Frank, on the House floor, claimed the new amendment would clearly codify current parents’ rights law found primarily in decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Frank argued it was necessary to adopt the amendment to stabilize parents’ rights and immunize them from change by future courts. Frank prophesized that the chief benefit of this proposed amendment would be that parents would avoid having to spend money to litigate their rights, because they would now be clearly known.
Based upon representations by two legislators, it appears this amendment was the product of a “committee” of interest groups, the Governor’s office, and some retired judges.
Gov. Greg Abbott, according to media reports, has previously strongly advocated for a “parents’ rights” constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, the proposed amendment passed by both chambers was not the product of legislative hearings or even moderately robust public debate or testimony.
The “committee” of interest groups and Representative Frank’s claims about the benefits of CSSJR 34 have not born fruit. The Texas Supreme Court’s order to parties in a pending case to file briefs on the application of Art.1 §37, and the wide variation of opinions in those briefs indicates it is unlikely there is a consensus that the meaning is clear. Consequently, the new amendment does not appear to be a simple codification of existing known law.
It is clear that parents, have not been able to avoid litigation costs regarding the new amendment. They have had to pay lawyers to file supplemental briefs which the Supreme Court ordered. Representative Frank’s promises and representations about the constitutional amendment’s capacity to save parents litigation costs could become even more questionable when in the coming years the parents face the issue in the multitude of lower Texas courts.
Given the lack of textual clarity, a Supreme Court interpretation, if it ever occurs, may result in more of a “legislative act.”
Many Texas courts may become involved in the amendment’s interpretation which the Supreme Court has suggested. Each court may offer a different take on the amendment’s meaning.
Thus, ironically creating a wide-open opportunity for subsequent courts to modify or overrule those interpretations. This would also be contrary to claims made by Representative Frank that the language of Article I, Section 37 would stabilize parents’ constitutional rights.
A final potentially negative outcome for parents is that this “parents’ responsibilities and rights” constitutional provision will likely remain “flaws and all.” The legislature will be unlikely to propose or pass a “replacement amendment” because a “replacement amendment” might cause more confusion and uncertainty.
Unfortunately, the Texas legislature has apparently saddled parents with less than optimum constitutional protection for the foreseeable future.
Brad Yock is a Canyon, Texas resident and is a lawyer who has extensively researched the constitutional and political importance of parent’s rights. He is the published author of legal and political articles. He does not belong to any organization other than the Texas State Bar and the College of the State Bar.
This article originally appeared on Amarillo Globe-News: Yock says Texas parents may be stuck with flawed policy | Opinion
Reporting by By Brad Yock, special for the Globe-News / Amarillo Globe-News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Brad Yock, special for the Globe-News | USA TODAY Network
