How Texas’ Prop. 15 Would Erode True Parental Liberty

Texas Proposition 15, set for the November 2025 ballot, seeks to amend the state Constitution to affirm parents’ “responsibility to nurture and protect” their children and their “fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control” over their upbringing. While presented as a defense of parental authority, the amendment’s vague and broad language raises concerns regarding the erosion of true parental liberty through misinterpretation and misuse. Moreover, existing federal and state protections already secure these rights, rendering the amendment unnecessary.

The Actual Language of Texas Proposition 15 (SJR 34)

“To enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation's history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent's child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent's child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child's upbringing.”

1. Vague Terms Invite State Overreach

The phrase “care, custody, and control” and the broad reference to “decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” are undefined, creating ambiguity that courts or state agencies could exploit. For instance, “upbringing” could be interpreted to favor specific cultural or ideological norms, restricting parents who make unconventional choices (e.g., non-traditional education or medical decisions). This vagueness empowers the state to define acceptable parenting, undermining the individualized liberty parents currently exercise by allowing judges to impose subjective standards under the guise of upholding “fundamental rights.”

2. “Responsibility to Nurture and Protect” Could Justify Intervention

The amendment’s emphasis on a parent’s “responsibility to nurture and protect” could be weaponized to challenge parental decisions deemed insufficiently protective by state actors. For example, parents opting against certain medical treatments or choosing educational approaches contrary to the lobbyists with the most influence, might face legal scrutiny if their choices are seen as failing to meet an undefined “nurture and protect” standard. This would erode liberty by subjecting parents to increased state oversight, particularly for marginalized or minority groups whose parenting practices may differ from mainstream norms.

3. “Deeply Rooted” Language Risks Ideological Bias

The phrase “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions” ties parental rights to a undefined and narrow interpretation of traditional values, which wold limit the rights of parents whose approaches deviate from the state’s view of “traditional” norms. For instance, parents advocating for values in their child’s education that contradict the state’s interpretation of “traditional” could find their rights curtailed if courts interpret “traditions” in any direction that contradicts parents. The state legislature has for several terms begun incentivizing curricula that includes theology lessons, tantamount to merging state and church. This would reduce parental liberty by prioritizing (or even legislating) the state’s worldview, stifling diversity in parenting choices.

4. Potential for Litigation Over Subjective Terms

The amendment’s broad language, particularly terms like “upbringing” and “control,” could spark lawsuits from advocacy groups or individuals challenging parental decisions as inconsistent with the amendment’s intent. This could burden parents with costly legal battles, especially those with limited resources, effectively limiting their practical ability to exercise the very rights the amendment claims to protect. The lack of clear boundaries in the language makes it a potential tool for legal harassment rather than empowerment.

Why the Amendment Is Unnecessary

1. Federal Constitutional Protections Already Exist

The amendment’s core assertion of a “fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control” mirrors protections already enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Troxel v. Granville (2000) explicitly affirms parents’ “fundamental liberty interest” in the “care, custody, and control of their children,” rooted in decades of precedent like Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). These federal protections, binding on Texas courts, make the amendment redundant, as the language adds no new legal substance beyond what is already guaranteed.

2. SCOTUS Precedents Provide Flexible Safeguards

The amendment’s reference to “truths deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions” echoes the Supreme Court’s reasoning in cases like Troxel, which already grounds parental rights in constitutional tradition. Unlike a static state amendment, federal case law evolves through judicial interpretation, allowing courts to balance parental liberty rights with a child’s Constitutionally-secured rights in complex cases. Codifying these rights in the Texas Constitution risks rigidifying them, limiting judicial flexibility without enhancing protections beyond what SCOTUS already provides.

3. Texas Statutes Already Cover Parental Rights

The Texas Education Code, particularly Chapter 26, grants parents extensive rights to direct their child’s education, access school materials, and make decisions about their upbringing, aligning with the amendment’s language. For example, parents can opt out of curricula or activities conflicting with their values, effectively covering the “decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” clause. This existing statutory framework renders the amendment unnecessary, as it duplicates rights already secured without addressing any clear legal gap.

4. No Evidence of Threat to Existing Rights

The amendment’s justification—to “enshrine” parental rights—implies a need to protect against erosion, yet the language offers no evidence of current threats to parental liberty in Texas. Federal and state protections have consistently upheld parents’ rights to care, custody, and control without significant challenge. The amendment’s redundancy suggests it serves symbolic or political purposes rather than addressing a pressing need, making its addition to the Texas Constitution superfluous.

Why the Language Is Deceptive

The amendment’s language appears to champion parental authority but may mislead voters by implying that current protections are insufficient. The appeal to “truths deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions” and “fundamental rights” suggests a novel or urgent safeguard, yet these rights are already well-established in federal law and Texas statutes. By framing existing protections as needing constitutional reinforcement, the language masks potential motives, such as enabling state oversight or promoting specific ideological agendas, which would undermine the very parental liberty it claims to uphold.

Conclusion

Proposition 15’s language, though framed as empowering parents, risks undermining their liberty by introducing ambiguous terms that would invite state overreach, ideological bias, and unnecessary litigation. With robust protections already enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, upheld by Supreme Court rulings like Troxel v. Granville, and codified in Texas statutes, this amendment adds no meaningful safeguards while likely restricting parental freedom. Its deceptive framing as a necessary defense of “deeply rooted” rights obscures its redundancy and risks. Voters should oppose Proposition 15 on November 4, 2025, to preserve the flexible, well-established parental liberty already in place.