Municipal Authority vs. State Directive: Analyzing Texas Roadway Marking Requirements
In early October 2025, Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to enforce the removal of non-standard roadway markings that convey “social, political, or ideological messages” from Texas streets. The directive, which aligns with a July letter from U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, further warns that any Texas county or city that refuses to comply could lose state and federal transportation funding. While some officials in cities like Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio argue the order appears to narrowly target rainbow crosswalks specifically, TxDOT has defended the decision, stating that non-standard markings that don’t directly support traffic control or safety “may cause confusion, reduce roadway uniformity, and impair the effectiveness of both human and automated vehicle navigation.” Regardless of the intention (political or otherwise), the Governor’s directive has raised questions about the balance between state oversight and municipal authority under Texas law.
Texas Transportation Code Chapter 311 grants municipalities substantial authority over their streets. Section 311.001 provides that home-rule municipalities have “exclusive control over and under the public highways, streets, and alleys of the municipality.” Similarly, Section 311.002 grants general-law municipalities “exclusive control over the highways, streets, and alleys of the municipality.”
The word “exclusive” is significant. Texas municipalities have traditionally exercised broad discretion over local street management, including decisions about street improvements, traffic control measures, and surface markings. This local control reflects the principle that municipalities are best positioned to address the unique needs and preferences of their communities.
The key legal question is whether the state can override municipal authority in this context. While Chapter 311 grants municipalities exclusive control, that authority is not absolute. Texas courts have long recognized that state law can preempt local ordinances when there is a conflict or when the Legislature has occupied the field.
The Governor’s directive relies on federal highway safety guidelines and funding conditions as its legal foundation. The federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) establishes standards for roadway markings, and federal funding typically comes with compliance requirements. However, these standards have historically focused on the functional aspects of traffic control devices—their visibility, placement, and standardization for driver comprehension—rather than prohibiting decorative elements that don’t interfere with the markings’ primary function. Some might argue that if so-called “social, political, and ideological” markings don’t actually impair traffic safety or driver comprehension, the state’s justification becomes questionable.
Municipalities facing this directive have several potential responses. Municipalities could potentially challenge the directive on several grounds: that it exceeds TxDOT’s statutory authority, that it conflicts with the exclusive control granted under Chapter 311, that the funding conditions are unduly coercive, or that the directive is arbitrary if the markings demonstrably don’t compromise safety.
Alternatively, municipalities might seek clarification from TxDOT about what qualifies for an exception. TxDOT has indicated its Traffic Safety Division may grant written approvals for exceptions “based on a demonstrated public safety benefit or compelling justification.”
As this situation develops, municipalities must balance their interest in maintaining local control with the practical necessity of preserving state and federal funding. The ultimate resolution may require either legislative clarification of the respective powers of state and local government in this arena or judicial intervention to determine whether the directive represents a permissible exercise of state authority or an unconstitutional intrusion on municipal autonomy.
Please do not rely on this article as legal advice. We can tell you what the law is, but until we know the facts of your given situation, we cannot provide legal guidance. This website is for informational purposes and not for the purposes of providing legal advice.
