What percentage of vote would it take to change restrictions in this situation?

POA in Texas.

Texas Property Code calls for 67% of membership vote to change restrictions and other documents but if an association's actual documents call for a lower amount, that lower amount will prevail over the state's 67%.

My POA's current CCRs call for a majority vote of the membership to terminate and/or amend the restrictions. So that majority requirement, since mention in the actual documents, would prevail over the states 67%. That is clear in the state law.

What is possibly unclear is what happens if a proposed restriction amendment remove that that majority clause?

What if the CCRs/restrictions amendment proposal was done in a way that removes that majority vote to amend them. In the new form, if passed, then the documents would be absent of any vote threshold, in which case the State 67% would then prevail.

But what about the point in between the old and new during passing of the new? Would the old restrictions's call for a majority allow them to be amended with just a majority even though the proposed amendment, on which was being voted, is now absent that majority clause? Or since that majority clause is absent in the proposed amendment, the state 67% would prevail and that amendment itself would take 67%+?

I assume the old majority clause would still prevail since it would still in effect during the new amendment vote, but I am not sure.

Why do you want to change the current majority in favor of 67% ... it is possible, in the future, to change with majority, but very, very hard to get 67% ... still can do, but a lot harder.

You are correct. The vote for the amendment would require a majority to pass because that is what is in your CC&Rs. The current CC&Rs are in full effect until an amendment is passed.

If it passes, then the 67% required by state code would be the requirement for any future amendments.

I don't understand why anyone would want to remove the clause from the CC&Rs. If the purpose of the amendment is to make it 67%, why not change the CC&Rs to state that, instead of removing the clause and relying on state code. It could be misleading.

I have always advocated for 67% to change a Covenant/Deed Restrictions. 51% to change a Bylaw.

It became unreasonable in my 100 home community back in 2011 when changes to the state's insurance laws made it necessary to amend our CC&Rs. Even though the amendment was important, the HOA was unable to get 67% of the owners to agree. The attorney then recommended that the HOA amend each of its CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation, to reduce the voter percent of approval needed for amendments to each to a simple majority of owners present at a duly noticed members meeting.

THOSE amendments passed with room to spare and the required amendment to the CC&Rs followed less than a year later and passed.

The change from 67% to 51% did require - and got - 67% of the owners to approve.