House approves broad education savings account program after contentious debate, 86-61

The Texas House on April 17 passed Senate Bill 2, establishing education savings accounts for Texas students, after lengthy debate that split members across ideological and geographic lines. The final passage vote was 86 ayes to 61 nays.

Representative Dr. Buckley, who explained the bill on the floor, moved final passage. “This is a bill we heard yesterday to establish education savings accounts for the children of Texas,” Buckley said before moving final passage.

Opponents framed the measure as a major threat to the state's public school system. Representative Anchia said the bill was “the result of an executive who has flexed financial and political muscle and a house that has been unable to hold the executive accountable in checks and balances.” Representative Simmons, a product of public schools, argued “supporting an efficient system of public free schools means improving education by focusing on real problems,” and said vouchers would drain public resources and hurt the most vulnerable students.

Several speakers warned about fiscal and oversight risks. Representative Martinez Fisher said the program would provide a $10,500 ESA check to participating families and warned the state was not protected from runaway program costs without strict appropriation caps. Representative Bernal criticized what he described as inconsistency in policy: he noted the chamber often rejects coverage for some medical needs as being too costly, yet this bill earmarked substantial funds that he said would flow to families who do not require the subsidy.

Supporters argued the legislation expands parental choice and educational opportunity. Chairman Buckley and supporters said the program creates options for families and parents seeking alternatives to local public schools.

The vote followed hours of floor speeches and amendment offers. A record vote was requested; the clerk announced the final tally as 86 ayes and 61 nays and the bill was declared finally passed.

What lawmakers debated most was the program’s long‑term fiscal impact and accountability mechanisms. Opponents repeatedly noted the absence of a hard appropriation cap within the bill and warned that, without legislative control over future appropriations, the program could grow beyond initial estimates. Supporters urged that implementation and future funding decisions would be for the legislature to control in subsequent appropriations actions.

SB 2 now heads to the enrollment and engrossment process before being transmitted to the governor.