Gina Hinojosa and a Texas State Income Tax: What Her Win Actually Means for Your Taxes

Before her first run for the Texas House, Hinojosa told an Austin TV station that Texas relied too heavily on property taxes because it lacked what she called the “third leg of that stool,” which she said would include income taxes. Abbott’s campaign built billboards and ads around that clip. This fall, Hinojosa said the interview was filmed more than a decade ago, that at the time she believed property taxes were high because Texas had no income tax, and that she now attributes high property taxes to what she called “grift in the system.” She has said repeatedly that she has never supported a state income tax.

This is the part of the dispute that confused a lot of voters, so we went back to the bill analysis for House Joint Resolution 38. Before 2019, Section 24 of Article 8 of the Texas Constitution, known as the Bullock amendment after the Democratic lieutenant governor who championed it in 1993, allowed the Legislature to pass an income tax law by simple majority, but it could not take effect unless voters approved it statewide. HJR 38 did two things: it repealed that Section 24 and added a new Section 24-a that flatly bans a tax on individuals’ net income. After that, any income tax would first need a new constitutional amendment, which requires two-thirds of each chamber before going to voters.

Hinojosa voted no. The House record shows HJR 38 passed 100 to 42, with three members present and not voting. One hundred is the exact minimum for a constitutional amendment in the 150-member House, so the measure cleared with no votes to spare. Around 20 House Democrats voted for it. The Senate passed it 22 to 9, and voters approved it that November as Proposition 4, with roughly three in four voting yes.

The two campaigns described the same vote very differently. Abbott’s campaign called it a vote against banning an income tax. Hinojosa described it as a vote against repealing the existing ban, the Bullock amendment’s voter-approval requirement, and said she would never implement a state income tax. A CBS Texas anchor noted that her framing was not fully consistent with the legislative record, since the measure she opposed was the one that wrote a flat ban into the constitution. Both statements contain a real piece of the history: HJR 38 did repeal Section 24, and it also replaced it with a stricter, outright prohibition.

The Abbott campaign made the issue a centrepiece from September onward, with billboards, ads and statements built around the 2016 clip and the 2019 vote. In interviews with CBS Texas in late September and mid-October, Hinojosa disputed that she had voted for an income tax, describing her 2019 vote as one to keep the Bullock-era protection rather than to open the door to a tax. Abbott told the same outlet that his own aim in 2019 had been to make a state income tax unconstitutional. In the final week, as public polls showed the race tightening, Hinojosa told a Panhandle station she knew of no Texas politician who supports a state income tax, and accused Abbott of trying to distract from his own record on property taxes.

On 3 November, voters chose Hinojosa by a wide margin. Early AP figures reported on election night showed her with about 57% of the vote to Abbott’s roughly 42%. Exit interviews and post-election analysis will take time to show how much the income tax dispute moved voters, compared with issues like property taxes, school funding and the broader national environment.

Article 8, Section 24-a of the Texas Constitution says the Legislature may not impose a tax on the net incomes of individuals, including an individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income. Because it’s in the constitution, a regular bill can’t override it. Lawmakers would first have to pass a joint resolution proposing to repeal or change it, which needs two-thirds of the members of each chamber: 100 of 150 in the House and 21 of 31 in the Senate, assuming no vacancies. Joint resolutions don’t go to the governor for a signature or veto. If both chambers clear the bar, the question goes on a statewide ballot, and a majority of voters must approve. Only after all that could lawmakers pass an actual income tax law.

Now the arithmetic for the incoming Legislature. As of Wednesday morning, the Texas Tribune reported the state Senate holding at 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats, and the Associated Press projected Republicans would keep control of the chamber. Democrats were gaining in the House, where control was still being counted. Even with a Democratic House, 12 Democratic senators would be nine short of the 21 needed.

Texas has funded itself without a personal income tax for its entire history. The state adopted a general sales tax in 1961, and that, along with oil and gas revenue, business taxes and local property taxes, has carried the budget ever since. In 1991, Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock, a Democrat, floated a state income tax paired with property tax cuts. The idea met strong resistance, and two years later Bullock championed the opposite: the 1993 amendment requiring statewide voter approval for any personal income tax, with most of any revenue earmarked for property tax relief and schools. That’s the provision Hinojosa referred to this fall.

In 2006, lawmakers overhauled the business franchise tax into the current margins tax, partly to pay for school property tax cuts after court rulings on school finance. Then came the 2019 outright ban and, in 2025, constitutional bans on capital gains, securities transaction and inheritance taxes. Each step narrowed the options for raising state revenue, which helps explain why property tax relief has become the central fight in Texas tax politics, and why debates over an income tax tend to be framed around property taxes, as the 2016 interview at the centre of this race was.

Texas pays for much of its schooling and local government through property taxes, which is why they run higher here than in many income-tax states. The biggest lever homeowners have is the homestead exemption. After voters approved Propositions 13 and 11 in November 2025, the school district homestead exemption is $140,000 for every homeowner who lives in the home, plus another $60,000 for homeowners who are 65 or older or disabled, for $200,000 in total. Those exemptions apply to school taxes; counties and cities may offer their own, smaller ones.

We ran a sample home through the estimator below to show the scale: at a combined school tax rate of about $1 per $100 of value, the $140,000 exemption alone takes roughly $1,400 off the yearly school bill, and the extra $60,000 for seniors adds about $600 more. The exemption isn’t automatic when you buy; you apply through your county appraisal district. If you bought recently, check that it’s on file. For most households, that check is worth more than anything decided in this election.

The estimator subtracts the $140,000 school homestead exemption, plus $60,000 more for homeowners 65 or older or disabled, from your appraised value before applying the school rate. For counties, cities and other units, it applies any optional percentage homestead exemption you enter. It doesn’t include senior tax ceilings, other special exemptions, or the 10% annual cap on taxable value increases for homesteads, so your real bill may be lower. The vote checker uses the two-thirds rule for constitutional amendments: 100 of 150 House members and 21 of 31 senators. The Senate default of 12 reflects the early count of Democratic senators.