Print 🖨

House Constitutional Rights & Remedies met on July 10 to consider bail-related bills HB 2 (Smith) and HJR 1 (Kacal) and the election-related bill, HB 3 (Murr). The report below includes all invited testimony and a spotlight on the people who provided public testimony.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Opening Statements

  • Chair Ashby – Have a full day ahead; intent is to consider all bills, any committee amendments, and vote out bills today
  • Non-committee member questioning limited to 5 minutes
  • Asking for amendments to be submitted to clerk, explanation will be limited to 3 minutes & discussion will be limited to 5 minutes
  • Ashby highlights the diversity of the committee, incl. rural viewpoints and members of color
  • Reps. Collier and Howard are in attendance

 

HB 2 (Smith) Relating to rules for setting the amount of bail, to the release of certain defendants on a monetary bond or personal bond, to related duties of certain officers taking bail bonds and of a magistrate in a criminal case, to charitable bail organizations, and to the reporting of information pertaining to bail bonds.

  • Damon Allen Act, seeks to make meaningful reforms to the bail system; intent is a balanced approach to prevent release of violent offenders while maintaining fair bail for nonviolent offenders
  • Also intending to hold people accountable for improper uses of bail
  • Looking to implement bail setting system to be used by any magistrate, not intended as a risk assessment tool
  • Will increase training requirements for those setting bail?
  • Worked hard to provide process for indigent defendants
  • Defendants may not be released on PR if charged with heinous or violent offenses
  • Bail setting forms are to be posted on the web & key data points are to be submitted to the legislature
  • White – Have a compressed timeline to pass this bill, can’t have people shooting LEOs; what is the purpose of the legislation?
    • Smith – Point is to address problems in the bail system, working on making this a better bill
    • Public safety is first & foremost, most understand the story of Damon Allen
    • 40 days since sine die, have heard of a large number of individuals who have passed away due to violent acts of those on bond
    • Bill also gives magistrates the best info possible to make individualized assessment of each defendant, 20 yr old with first time DUI is one thing, another person with criminal history is another
    • 5th Circuit will require us to do this
  • White – O’Donnell case applied to misdemeanors, trying to apply this to felony bail; not making difference between aggravated or non-aggravated on timeline
  • Rep. White and Rep. Smith discuss offenses
    • Smith – Didn’t want to catch Class C misdemeanors in this, but wanted every jailable offense to be looked at with this process; this is why we started with Class B
  • White – Indigent defendants, when are finances looked at?
    • Starts with affidavit process, an inquiry into financial status
    • Magistrate sets the bail, there is a rebuttable presumption that these are sufficient to satisfy bail rules, can argue higher or lower
    • Unless the defendant files an affidavit that a scheduled bond or standing bond is unable to be paid, that’s the only time you get into finances
  • White – How does this bill have an undetermined local fiscal impact?
    • I think there will be a fiscal impact
  • White – Will we have more info by the time we get to the floor?
    • I suspect we’ll hear today about the fiscal impact
    • David Slayton with OCA is here as a resource, and he will detail the fiscal note
  • A Johnson – This legislation seems to be in response to Harris County and the O’Donnell case; what is your definition of bail reform?
    • My idea may be one thing, but what is important is to get reform going to address heinous situations that are occurring and get some level of public safety
    • Also want to be in a position to have state control bail system and not have federal gov step in
  • A Johnson – Is your intention of bail reform to not incarcerate the indigent, or what is the purpose?
    • Don’t necessarily have a definition
  • A Johnson – If you’re using the term “bail reform”, it would be helpful to understand intent
    • Making changes to bail system, but not the only changes we may make to the system; right now, addressing most pressing needs
  • A Johnson – Want to understand if these measures will truly lead to public safety, or if they’ll lead to mass detention; O’Donnell case gives a very bright line to process misdemeanor defendants within 24 hours and felony defendants within 48 hours; concerned that indigency affidavit will trigger an additional step and will violate, is this your intent?
    • Not intending to violate O’Donnell, this particular provision satisfies portions of O’Donnell
    • Know O’Donnell had the 24-hour provisions, but issue came back up on remand, was this maintained?
  • A Johnson – How much time did you spend in Harris after drafting?
    • Spent three years in law school there, visited girlfriend once; haven’t spent any appreciable professional time
  • A Johnson – Have you spent any time with stakeholders in Harris working to comply with ruling?
    • Have spent time with Sen. Huffman
  • A Johnson – Sen. Huffman was a great prosecutor, but don’t know that she has spent time on the current issue; have you spent time with the people working on this now?
    • No, but would love to see this
  • A Johnson – Over 8k currently incarcerated in Harris County, have a 10k capacity; vast majority are nonviolent
    • Will take your word for that
  • A Johnson – Need space for violent offenders, don’t want nonviolent offenders to languish. What is the statutory provision to meet the 48-hour standard?
    • Bill requires this, must report if they didn’t and why they didn’t
    • Affidavit will get them before a magistrate quicker than typical, must have the hearing within 48 hours of arrest given the affidavit
  • A Johnson – Are you stating that arrest, affidavit and review is done within 48 hours?
    • Intent is to make sure we do what we can to comply with O’Donnell
  • A Johnson – Seemed to be suggesting previously that affidavit could be done after 48 hours, is your intent otherwise?
    • In regard to cases involving schedules, yes
  • A Johnson – 5th Circuit warned against schedules, shouldn’t be putting a wink & nod to bail schedules in statute
  • A Johnson – This statute is not intending to supersede 15.17?
    • 15.17 will happen and then you file the affidavit
  • A Johnson – O’Donnell is saying that the affidavit should be part of 15.17, want to make sure this is clear; talking about keeping people detained for longer
    • In order to file affidavit, magistrate needs to apply bail under 15.17
  • A Johnson – In Harris County, pre-trial services goes through this process with defendants; looks like we have a disconnect between urban and rural settings in process
  • A Johnson – Highlights cost to counties
    • System is free of charge for counties
  • A Johnson – Is it created yet? Who is developing it?
    • Would need to defer to OCA
  • A Johnson – Could you tell me your understanding of the criminal history reports?
    • Database that gives national info on criminal history
  • A Johnson – Have background checks available in police patrol vehicles, why do we need to spend money to create a system that already exists?
    • Creating best system for magistrates possible, includes criminal history but not the only part of the system
    • OCA has brought a form that will show what this looks like
    • Trying to provide substantial and easy to digest info, magistrates should go through entire criminal history docs at times, but not necessary in others
  • A Johnson – Magistrates in Harris look at the full file regularly, concerned that we’re taking away discretion, creating mass detention, and creating huge fiscal burden for counties
  • A Johnson – Shouldn’t we have all magistrates be lawyers?
    • In Grayson County no JP magistrates are lawyers, many lawyers don’t want to take these pay cuts
    • Current system is an inexpensive way to do this
  • A Johnson – Confused because we are undertaking expense of creating a new system, costs Harris County a large amount to house inmates
    • Disagree that this will cause more incarcerations, will give more info
  • A Johnson – Right now in Harris County, we’re citing and releasing for nonviolent offenders, but statute requires new software needs to be used on every criminal charge, bill will override this and dramatically reduce space for violent offenders
    • Because the federal court said we need an individualized assessment
  • A Johnson – That is if you have a bail schedule, but Harris County has implemented a good system that avoids this; will need hearings on all these cases, where are those people going to go?
    • Process will go through website, better than having thick criminal history report
  • A Johnson – Bill applies to much more than heinous offenses, must apply the new software package that is costly to all offenders before release
  • A Johnson – Would a bar fight, a Class A assault, be considered heinous?
    • This applies to PR bonds only, not surety or cash bond
  • Chair Ashby highlights that several people are lined up for questions & have 8 invited witnesses
  • A Johnson – Will lead to those with mental health issues being prohibited from entering services due to lack of PR bond
  • A Johnson – Bill added aggravated solicitation of prostitution back in, has a chance of catching victims rather than targeting people responsible?
    • Didn’t construct list, applies only to PR bond
  • S Thompson – Why are we denying charitable bail organizations ability to help indigent offenders?
    • Not denying these organizations from doing their work, many reputable organizations doing good work
    • Saying that these organizations cannot bail violent offenders, asking for transparency in who they are bailing out
  • S Thompson – Telling them who they can bail and who they can’t?
    • Not for violent offenders charged with this list of crimes, otherwise they can do their work
  • S Thompson – Always assumed persons accused were innocent until proven guilty, why are we putting in law that those accused of these crimes are not allowed to get assistance? Telling them how to spend their money
    • Charitable bail organizations do not count family, religious orgs, or those that do less than 3 bails every 180 days
  • S Thompson – The 3 within 180 days applies to misdemeanors?
    • To everything, as it’s written
  • S Thompson – Why are we picking on these orgs? Do we have it in for anyone?
    • Limited nature of provision reflects that we don’t have it in for anyone
  • S Thompson – Seems like we’re restricting people we don’t like
  • Longoria – Did you ever look at a tier system for prioritizing where defendants should go? What do you think about something like this?
    • Would be concerned you run into problems with streamlining process
    • Have a magistrate training program to be developed by the OCA
  • S Thompson – Did a system like this for county courts, found that some counties were not financially able to have county judge handling things; had a tiered system that worked; we’re giving JPs a lot of powers in many areas & need to ensure we protect liberty rights
  • S Thompson – Tiered system can work, saves money & allows counties to pool resources
  • Longoria and Smith discuss magistrates and duty to set bond
    • Bond amounts will be posted to the web; public will be able to see if bond is too high or low
  • Longoria – Have you looked at any pre-trial services type issues?
    • We have a report generated that is similar to pre-trial services, OCA system will provide this to magistrates
  • Moody – Bill’s purpose to is to lock away more violent offenders, will also likely capture more nonviolent offenders
    • Purpose is to promote public safety with least restrictive measures in setting bond
  • Moody – How is ability to post cash bond equated to community safety? Bill pushes more people into cash bail system by precluding PR bonds
    • Have cash and surety bonds, but you still pay cash on sureties
  • Moody – Goal does not seem to promote public safety, default setting is that indigent defendants will be detained for longer; affidavit is incredibly difficult for defendants, will this have disparate impact on those that are indigent?
    • Has been a lot of research done in connection with O’Donnell
    • Highlights bill not allowing PR bonds for certain heinous offenses
  • Moody – Do you believe that PR bonds are “get out of jail free” cards?
    • I do, court still has control of them ostensibly
  • Moody – Not just ostensibly, court can order many monitoring conditions, bill even highlights this and adds to cash bail part, similar to probation
  • Moody – Default setting of our justice system is liberty; bill is painting with a very broad brush, and this is the danger
  • Moody – We’re increasing capability of the government to separate people from their lives
  • Moody – Why couldn’t a charitable bail organization post bond for someone accused of DUI now that had a violent crime conviction a significant time ago?
    • Trying to make sure we’re not rewarding bad behavior, would like to talk more about this
  • Moody – Highlights case of Kyle Rittenhouse, accused of 2 counts of murder with $2 million bond; also highlights case of Hervis Rodgers given a $100k bond, when he didn’t know he wasn’t eligible to vote, significantly higher than his ability to pay; hopes AG is here to speak on this
  • Moody – There is bias in our system, disparate impact mostly against black men, but it doesn’t stop there; not disputable that we’ve had this impact in history, so when criminal history is produced
  • Moody – Issues were much better handled in HB during session, need to look at charitable bail issue, not understanding why; charitable organizations posting bail is functionally the same as rich people or bail bondsman posting
    • Bill addresses a limited circumstance, part of the balancing act on this bill, makes sure we don’t give worst alleged offenders a free pass
  • Moody – Need to also look at indigency affidavit, could lead to more people being incarcerated for longer under this bill
  • S Thompson – Appears like we’re protecting bail bonds industry, looks like a business-driven bill
  • Neave – Has there been any impact study on Latinos and African Americans?
    • Not aware of any study
  • Neave – This legislation will have a major impact on people of color
    • There will be a variety of impacts, hoping that there would be a just result for pre-trial detention, will cut both ways
  • Neave – Do you have concerns that the bill would increase inequities within our system for people of color?
    • Always something I’m vigilant in watching, don’t think this bill will do this
  • Neave – Bail is set more often and at higher amounts for black defendants
    • Not advised
  • Neave – Are you aware of any study on impact by gender?
    • Can’t speak to everything done in connection with O’Donnell case
  • Neave – Has been a 900% increase of women in prison and jail, data showing increased impact on women in the bail system; many are landing in jail in connection with traumatic events like DV
  • Neave – You’re aware of inequities in women’s pay, correct?
    • Have heard this anecdotally
  • Neave – Highlights need to have proper info before passing sweeping legislation
    • Important to have reasonable info and will monitor, bill has a data collection function
  • Neave – Data is not broken out by gender or race
    • Would be willing to talk about adding data points
  • Neave – Would you also be willing to add data on time to release?
    • Sounds like good info, let’s talk about adding this
  • Neave – Why do you have the citizenship status provision?
    • Under 15.17 and 17.15, one of the core purposes is to ensure people show up, need to know where someone is a legal citizen; important to know if someone might leave for some other country
  • Neave – Is citizenship status relevant to whether they are a threat to public safety?
    • Want to make sure justice system is respected and that people show up
  • Neave – Concerned that these provisions are vague and could be used to target Latino defendants
    • Would have concern if bill stated that race should be considered; cannot control magistrates
    • Bill does not say race or ethnicity
  • Neave – How was the list of PR prohibited offenses generated?
    • Sen. Huffman and Rep. Murr used 17.03 violent crimes
    • Highlights stories heard of violent offenders being released on bail and committing further crimes
  • Neave – What other issues was the bill trying to address in prohibiting these offenses on PR bonds?
    • PR bond provision was to ensure individuals aren’t getting out on PR bond when they should not
  • Neave – Any evidence suggesting that these individuals are less likely to show up in court?
    • In my experience, yes
  • Neave – Bill supports two path system where if you can afford it, you get out. If you can’t afford it, you can’t get out
    • Bill has the indigency affidavit included, saying we can’t do PR bonds for these types of violent offenses
  • Lozano – Doesn’t want those accused crimes related to organized crime out on PR bonds; discusses citizenship status in context of flight risk
    • Correct, want to ensure these individuals return to court
  • Lozano – What is your thought on those engaged in organized criminal activity out on PR bond?
    • Organized criminal activity runs the gamut of underlying crimes, incl. serial robberies, etc.
  • Lozano – Can a person get a PR bond for conspiracy to distribute cocaine?
    • Could be eligible for a PR bond
  • Lozano – Why not add this to the excluded offenses?
    • Would be open to this
  • Lozano – Could just narrow this down to drug smuggling
  • Bucy – Highlights red flags associated with charitable organization provision, having a hard time understanding why this is included; will be hearing from the Bail Project later
  • Bucy – Creating two systems where if you’re rich you can get bail, but if you aren’t you can’t make bail
    • Open to discussing this more
  • Bucy – Should listen to Bail Project and other orgs in this field on why they are doing this

 

HB 2 Invited Panel 1

Derek Cohen, Texas Public Policy Foundation – For

  • Cash bail is a poor predictor of risk, but can be appropriate mechanism for ensuring defendants return; O’Donnell decision is trying to get away from bail schedule
  • Out of large number of violent crimes from those released on bail, very few were PR bonds; should be focused on risk rather than cash
  • Different misdemeanors have different indications of flight risk, e.g., bail jumping misdemeanor would be more important than other offenses & should be considered more

 

Nick Hudson, ACLU of Texas – Against

  • Individuals are trapped in jail often for inability to pay bail, incl. individuals who are legally innocent; in some counties acquittal and dismissal is close to 40%
  • Bill has major constitutional problems, likely violates Equal Protection & Due Process; does not do anything about public safety, cash bail is not linked to safety or appearance risk

 

HB 2 Invited Panel 1 Questions

  • A Johnson – Would you agree that pre-trial detention can lead to loss of job, income, and increased crime?
    • Cohen, TPPF – Increased crime comes from a variety of factors, does lead to loss of resources
  • A Johnson – Can increase stress on government infrastructure
    • Agree
  • A Johnson – Because this includes all Class B’s, this could increase detention
    • Not necessarily if we could contextualize criminal history, could identify risk in relation to PR bonds
  • A Johnson – Do you know factors in screening, who is creating factors?
    • Yes, simply a spreadsheet and point system; concerned that we won’t have data available that members are concerned over; validation is important to ensure certain groups aren’t over or underpredicted
  • A Johnson – Harris County got sued for a point system, would you agree that O’Donnell directed as to move away from this?
    • Not entirely, different crimes are suggestive of criminality differently
  • A Johnson – Highlights need for appropriate training for JPs, would be better to have legal practitioners as JPs; not allowed to make decisions on divorce, title & lien, etc.
    • In many areas there are no other options, training and info with context would be the ideal situation in many counties
  • A Johnson – Having background in law could be better & safer for Texas for magisterial purposes
  • Neave – Can you speak to whether you believe this legislation will harm Latino and African American defendants?
    • Hudson, ACLU – Will take away options for no money bail, money bail is typically set higher for women, Latinos, and African Americans
  • S Thompson – Can you share the rationale for denying charitable bail orgs? Seems like a vendor bill
    • Have seen these provisions across the country and has been shopped largely by the bail industry
    • No rationale for denying charitable bail while allowing industry to do so; charitable bail tends to bail out those with lower bail and lack of ability to pay
  • S Thompson – What are the reappearance statistics with charitable orgs?
    • Typically, higher than the bail industry at large, 95% reappearance
  • Moody – Can you outline the imperfections in the bill?
    • Cohen, TPPF – Biggest issue is not allowing assessment rating or score based on risk, removes ability to determine if we’re over- or under-predicting
    • Also have a more permissive indigency determination in statute that could be used instead of the affidavit
  • Moody – Bill seems to provide for an adversarial proceeding without counsel, requiring defendant to rebut state assumptions without counsel
    • Issue at hand is if jeopardy is attached at this point, currently it is not
  • Moody – Highlights that the indigency affidavit gets into facts supporting bail decision, would necessarily get into facts of the case at hand; gets at whether we’re asking defendants to participate in an adversarial process without counsel
    • Affiant is swearing to facts put forth, not necessarily related to the trial
  • Collier – Would anything in the bill require validation to ensure no separate impact?
    • No contextualization in the bill so nothing to validate
  • Collier – Is there anything to gather data on disparate impact?
    • There is a data gathering provision, but nothing on how this data is used
  • Collier – Is there anything regarding a tax return in current law?
    • Possible to ask for this, but not required
  • Collier – Asks after spousal provisions, how does money owed to defendant or defendant’s spouse affect ability to pay?
    • Could speak to assets that may be available in the future
  • Collier – Bill references anticipated changes in defendant ability to pay, has there been any effort to define this?
    • Wouldn’t be the person to answer, this applies to universe of ability to pay
  • Collier – Current law is tacked to present ability to pay

 

Remainder of HB 2 Invited Testimony

Judge Rick Hill, Justices of the Peace and Constable Association – For

  • JP training could lead to a better & more efficient system, being a legal professional is not sufficient
  • JPs need readily accessible risk assessment tools, highlights repeated statements by Justice Nathan Hecht supporting validated risk assessment tool
  • A Johnson – Difficulty is with assessing risk of first-time offenders?
    • Judge Hill – Issue isn’t with the tool, but applying tool absolutely, someone who is a first-time offender is low risk
  • A Johnson – But there may be factors that make them high-risk, like age?
    • Age is one of nine
  • A Johnson – Can already deny bail on capital murder, habitual criminal status
    • Note necessarily at the magistration level, higher courts can do this
  • A Johnson – Highlights possibility of system where different judges get different levels of cases
    • Discussed last session, but many judges will not want to
  • Judge Hill highlights that 92% of JPs are non-attorneys, will be a significant cost if counties need to hire attorneys
  • A Johnson – But requiring magistration for all Class Bs would be a significant cost as well
    • Have issues with this as well
  • A Johnson – Essentially choosing which system we want to use
    • Need a system where PR bonds are available for low-risk offenders
  • A Johnson – Bill is a one-way street on all Class Bs
    • We see it this way; bail reform is already happening at the county level
  • A Johnson – In that case why do we need the statute?
    • Need to have uniformity for the offenses considered under the bill

 

Allen Place, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association – Against

  • HB 2 provides information to magistrate, its critical for them to have it
  • A variety of positive things have happened, counties are in charge of the process
  • Elimination of personal bonds and curtailing of charitable bonds is a new section
  • Would have them consider on risk assessment/report, it is probably too broad and too onerous and would like that curtailed
  • Asked committee to keep in mind it’s not hardest thing to be arrested
  • Bill language could compound issue of poor indigent people being kept in jail
  • Personal bonds, etc. language ignores technology
  • Conditions of public safety are best met by condition of bond, local magistrate knows situation
  • Thinks second part of bill takes large tool from the toolbox of local magistrates
  • Request bill to be streamlined so magistrate can get the information
  • Moody – witness said key things, it is easy to be accused of something and cautions committee as they think on bill, language in bill is addressing accusations
    • Magistrates get limited information, and trying to draw parallel to Federal system is inaccurate
  • Argues bill is a big change and urges them to proceed cautiously

 

Shannon Edmonds, Texas District and County Attorney Association – Neutral

  • Available as a resource
  • Says this version is improved from last session
  • Recommends revisiting streamline exigency
  • HB 776 from last session already does some things in the bill and last session has quicker timelines but focus on violent crime
  • A Johnson – Asked about setting bail, defendant is also getting counsel at this time
    • Harris County unique of individuals present during setting of bail, there are a few where lawyers are there to participate
    • Yes, that happens in Harris County where they get counsel
  • A Johnson – Why are we creating new software system, police officer could work alongside magistrate to provide information and if they could hire a police officer would not need a new software system
    • Yes, but bill has language on information and more
  • A Johnson – Gives example to ask if expedited hearing, asking on possibility
    • Defers to another witness to answer
  • A Johnson – What if they have a human trafficking victim, does bill restrict judge ability to get trauma care?
    • If defendant was charged/released on one of the offenses listed, then he/she could not acquire personal bond

 

Ken Good, Attorney in Texas – For

  • Gives history on O’Donnell ruling and others
  • O’Donnell has ruled bail is constitutional
  • Jails are crowded but cautions against mis-representing O’Donnell case
  • Biggest part of bill is about reviewing criminal histories, important part of bill and offers example where it could have been life saving
  • Focus is mostly on Harris County, bill still leaves discretion to magistrate
  • Concern on Constitutional amendment language in bill, tie it in with passage of Constitutional amendment
  • “Least restrictive conditions” language concern
  • Geren – Already have technology availability of criminal background check?
    • Yes, problem is judges have to go through 8-hour training
    • Will pull from database and put into report to address training issue
  • White – Confirmed if association has taken position on current case working its way through the courts
    • Agree, have not
  • White – Concern on least restrictive conditions
    • Understand need of language but do have a bunch of statutes that require conditions to be imposed
  • Moody – Question about concern if a part fails if Constitutional Amendment does not pass
    • Need to change language to make it conditional on passage of passage of Constitutional Amendment
  • Bucy – What is your return rate?
    • Very high, but by industry less than 10%
  • Bucy – Trying to contrast with charitable bail organizations?
    • Not here to criticize charitable bail organizations
  • A Johnson – Discusses cash bond to be released
    • Bill allows for administrative fee
    • Various prices, if you called 4 different bondsmen, they would give 4 different prices
  • A Johnson – Bail bonds do have a risk
    • Current law allows permissive use of history
  • A Johnson – Concern on language being overbroad in bill

 

Judge Genesis Draper, Harris County Court of Law #12 Judge (virtual) – On

  • Prohibitions on PR bonds for certain offenses is an overreach and removes judicial discretion
  • Policing charitable bail orgs will lead to constitutional violations without achieving a definable goal
  • Money bail has been consistently challenged federally, there is a presumption that defendants should be released with appropriate conditions

 

David Slayton, Texas Judicial Council, Office of Court Administration – Resource

  • Judicial Council has recommended providing more information for judges to determine bail, also has identified issues where defendants are released or held based on money
  • Highlights criminal history information available to judges around the state, varies by county; limits on access to criminal history are due to FBI requiring training, HB 2 requires this training and requires judges to look at this info
  • Current system allows for info on bail decision to be collected under HB 2, additional data is available on monthly reports to OCA by the clerks
  • A Johnson – JPs currently have the ability to review history if they go through the 8 hour FBI course?
    • Yes, and it is a periodic requirement
  • A Johnson – And this is voluntary?
    • Yes, every magistrate has access; no requirement under current law to review this info as part of bail decision
  • A Johnson – Asks after potential for constitutional issues and the indigent affidavit
    • O’Donnell has been talked about a lot, but there is a case out of Galveston on bail system, case determined that determination of bail was a critical stage that required counsel
    • HB 2 doesn’t require counsel, but is possible for court to find this in the future
  • A Johnson – Is it feasible to have virtual bail hearings hosted in one county and applicable to another county?
    • It is, judiciary never closed during the pandemic
  • Neave – Would it be easy to have access to demographic data on gender, ethnicity, etc.?
    • It is possible, but should be made part of public safety report or bail form that comes in instantaneously rather than as part of the monthly report
  • Neave – Asks after these factors in the PSR
    • PSR does not typically contain these factors aside from age, there is concern that these factors could have disparate impacts
  • Neave – Have you discussed citizenship status data and public safety implications?
    • Have not, currently don’t collect citizenship data at OCA
  • Neave – Have you been approached to discuss impact on Latinos and African Americans?
    • Haven’t been approached, but have looked at this issue with study in Travis and Tarrant Counties
    • Found that lower income individuals were held more often in a financial based system rather than a risk-based system
  • Neave – Have you been approached by the bill author on impact based on gender?
    • Have not been asked for this info and wouldn’t have it
  • Neave – Was OCA approached for data on the offense list?
    • No, but could probably pull some data on how offenses are charged
  • A Johnson – Highlights Harris County impact from Harvey and COVID, backlog is significant due to both these events and no support
    • Not just Harris County that is backlogged for felonies, this is a statewide issue
  • A Johnson – Spending resources on violent offenders would help public safety more than spending on nonviolent offenders
    • Could slow down process if there are a number of additions with no thought to streamlining
    • 17.20 and 17.22 allow people to bond out before they go before magistrates, typically applies when there is a schedule; PSR would not necessarily be needed due to this
  • S Thompson – How far do we go back on the PSR?
    • Under HB 2 there is no limitation
  • S Thompson – Is there value in bracketing this to 5-8 years?
    • In HB 20, there was a limit of 10 years for certain offenses. We want to make sure the tool would be validated as predictive of risk
  • Lozano – Do you get data on bond reductions?
    • No data on bail currently, HB 2 helps with this

 

Spotlight on Public Testimony on HB 2

Roughly 38 public witnesses testified on HB 2, 32 against, 4 for, and 2 neutral

 

Judge Mollee Westfall, Tarrant County – Against

  • Highlights the large number duties handled by judges, adding bond setting on new misdemeanor offenses doesn’t seem to add any significant value
  • A Johnson discusses how HB 2 would eliminate some of the policies and practices by Tarrant County
    • Westfall – Already have assessments that is validated for disparate impact
  • A Johnson – You have a number of processes for withholding bail
    • Correct

 

Peter Steffenson, Texas Civil Rights Project – Against

  • Bill would have a negative impact on public safety, targeting charitable organizations does not have rational basis; these organizations are very good at ensuring individuals bailed return to court
  • Neave – Can you expand on the indigency affidavit and how it would lead to more detention?
    • Would increase time for initial interview, defendants would have difficulty completing form without access to personal items & under threat of additional charges via perjury
  • S Thompson – Asks after portions of written testimony
    • Bail reform is needed to make bail decisions more equitable and obtain releases of nonviolent offenders

 

Amanda Wu, Texas Civil Defense Project – Against

  • Affidavit process turns the constitutional protections for indigent defenders on its head; does not notify defendants of their rights and requires them to prove their rights apply
  • Neave – Can you talk to us about the timing of the 48 hours and the affidavit?
    • 48 hours is from arrest to the hearing, not triggered by affidavit
    • Must verify that a person is able to pay at this initial hearing
  • Neave – How is the affidavit contrary to O’Donnell?
    • It is the responsibility of the court officer to notify defendants of their rights

 

Adam Haynes, Conference of Urban Counties – Against

  • Supportive of goal & more training to ensure magistrates have more understanding of bail, but concerned about removal of discretion
  • HB 2 will be a dramatic change to court operations, will cost counties and lead to backlog

 

Suzy Rodriguez, Bail Project – Against

  • Opposes any legislation that will lead to more detention, bill would negatively impact black and brown communities
  • Bucy – How do you determine which clients to bail?
    • Have an intake process, incl. background check, need check, supports check; work afterwards to ensure client has services they need and meet court dates
  • Bucy – Can you speak to the 90% return rate?
    • Provide transportation, ensure they are referred to social services
  • Bucy – Asks about background check
    • Have a tiered process to ensure needs are met, management teams
  • Bucy – Do you have data on demographics?
    • Within Texas, 79% black or brown, 49% parents
  • Bucy – How would bill affect you?
    • Wouldn’t be able to assist clients as needed, would need to do more paperwork and overhead work
  • Bucy – Has the bill author met with you?
    • They have met with our policy team
  • Landgraf – Where does the money come from?
    • Private donors
  • Neave – On average how much do you pay for bail?
    • Will need to follow up
  • Neave – Is it a low number?
    • Typically looking at amount $5k and below, but look at it case by case

 

Jim Allison, County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas – Against

  • Highlights potential cost to counties
  • White – Is there anything we can do to streamline this?
    • Can address violent offenders by covering felonies and training without touching misdemeanors
  • Shaheen – Why is this different than other unfunded mandates?
    • Criminal offenses are offenses against the state, state should see that it is funded the same regardless of the local tax base
  • Clardy – Housing of state jail inmates is an expense to counties; unfunded mandates used to not be acceptable for conservatives, but this seems to have changed
  • Clardy – In addition to inmates, what other costs are there for counties?
    • Will need additional personnel to perform functions under bill, could need additional attorneys, court reporters, etc. in some cases
  • Clardy – All agree that we don’t need to pay for jail stays for nonviolent offenders, but need violent offenders to be put away

 

Rep. Smith Closes

  • Goal is to have a balanced bill that is workable for those in the room
  • Moody – Appreciates process, need to spend more time; some good things in here like training, but reforming bonds in a way that will leave more people incarcerated we need to reconsider, need to be cautious about our liberty
    • Smith – Confident we will strike a balance, will continue to have conversations on the bill; don’t want to get to the floor with something unworkable or that damages innocent individuals

 

HB 2 left pending

 

HJR 1 (Kacal) Proposing a constitutional amendment requiring a judge or magistrate to impose the least restrictive conditions of bail that may be necessary and authorizing the denial of bail under some circumstances to a person accused of a violent or sexual offense or of continuous trafficking of persons.

  • Is approved, will have option to deny bail for certain offenses with clear & convincing evidence; requires issuance of finding of fact and has opportunity to appeal

 

Public Testimony on HJR 1

Nick Hudson, ACLU – Against

  • Would like to narrowly tailor bill to target those fleeing prosecution
  • Bill seems to weaken clear & convincing evidence by allowing judges to consider only evidence currently allowed under law

 

Rep. Kacal closes

  • Moody – Is this reflective of the CCR during the regular session?
    • Kacal – Getting close
  • Moody – Want the same amount of diligence on HB 2 that we had on HJR 1, you worked hard on this bill during the regular; HB 2 is mass detention, not bail reform
  • Moody – Will vote for a CCR on this bill, but will be voting no on this HJR 1 because I think it’s the only way to make space on HB 2

 

HJR 1 voted out (10-5)

 

HB 2 taken back up to vote out

 

HB 2 voted out (9-6)

 

HB 3 (Murr) Relating to election integrity and security, including by preventing fraud in the conduct of elections in this state; increasing criminal penalties; creating criminal offenses.

  • Murr provides a history of mail by vote and early voting, Texas was one of the first states to implement both measures; state has consistently reviewed election law making changes and updates as needed, HB 3 continues this
  • Continues many provisions from SB 7 and the CCR, tries to exclude provisions that already became law in other bills, generally excludes provisions out of the bounds of the CCR, and excludes provisions from the Senate
  • Includes language from both Republicans and Democrats, all viewpoints have been considered
  • Does not contain controversial provisions related to ‘souls to the polls,’ overturning elections, and occupants of motor vehicles during curbside voting
  • Contains automatic forwarding of applications to vote, clarifies Texas does not engage in 24-hour voting process and does not have universal motor voting
  • Early voting hours at least 9 hours from 6 AM to 10 PM, also contains expansions of Saturday and Sunday voting hours
  • Clarifies that software technically allowing straight-ticket voting is not allowed
  • Highlights poll watcher provisions, incl. oath that they will not disrupt, power of official to remove them, free movement of watchers
  • No drop box voting, in person delivery
  • Clarifies eligibility and passive process for vote by mail
  • Contains ballot tracking language, potential to cure defects for mail votes
  • Neave – In intent and name, can you tell us what ‘integrity’ means to you?
    • Murr – Public confidence in our system and electoral process
  • Neave – You reference parts of the Constitution that charge the state to make laws to pursue fraud, you know what this section of the Constitution references?
    • This section typically deals with what we’re talking about today
  • Neave – When the bill was previously brought up there was some concerning language, was this excluded?
    • Yes, Rep. Jarvis Johnson offered FA 2, it deleted the reference, respectful of the process of the House
  • Neave – Is it because of the discussion surrounding the language having a discriminatory nature?
    • Took notice of the fact the amendment was accepted by the author
  • Neave – Do you believe any elected officials currently elected were fraudulently elected?
    • Sitting before a body today where I am confident that all were properly elected
  • Neave – Do you believe any current elected officials is not legitimately in office?
    • Not aware of any at the moment, not advised of all situations across the state
  • Neave – This language is similar to conspiracy language that says President Biden is not legitimately elected; is it your intent that this is avoiding this or is it your concern there is not confidence?
    • I do not have this concern, in the public forum there are some show, articles, discussions, etc. that occur where some have aired those concerns; should do everything we can to reflect on our electoral policy
  • Neave – Is any of this electoral policy based on those concerns?
    • Based on input from elected officials, some based on experiences with vote by mail, poll watchers, and new interpretations of Texas law
  • Neave – Do you believe our democracy is unstable?
    • I do not
  • Neave – SOS testified that despite COVID challenges, the 2020 election was a success, was smooth & secure; your legislation is not based on concerns that the election was not secure, correct?
    • No; during COVID certain areas of the state created ad hoc voting rules, one goal is to establish and emphasize uniformity
  • Neave – Why do we need this legislation when the election was safe & secure?
    • We have discrepancies like jurisdictions implementing 24-hour voting
  • Neave – And this made you concerned about voter fraud?
    • Didn’t create equal opportunity to vote around the state
  • Neave – Because one jurisdiction created 24 hour voting and others didn’t? Would it make it fairer to have this for all jurisdictions?
    • Was an interpretation of current law
  • Neave – Doesn’t prohibit this though?
    • I believe it does
  • Neave – Work to avoid unintended consequences
    • Yes, it is reflected in all looks and can work on next session
  • Neave – Do you have faith in the judicial system?
    • Has faith in all three branches of government
  • Neave – Can you talk about major case AG brought about voter fraud?
    • Does not have that in front of him
    • Neave – AG alleged voter fraud in other states, noting Texas did not allege any voter fraud
  • Neave – Did you determine if there were any cases on which to base the legislation? Have you visited with any agencies to determine if there was any voter fraud to base the bill on?
    • Yes, has visited with others
  • Neave – Want to count as many votes as possible, correct?
    • We want to count all legally cast ballots
  • Neave – Local officials may interpret rules a certain way so folks may not be allowed to vote
    • Notes we operate under a passive system where voter has to request mail in ballots
  • Neave – Can you confirm that the bill is not going to have a disproportionate impact on minorities?
    • Not aware the bill would do that, previous comments on previous legislation before committee
    • Confirms has not done a racial impact study on this particular bill
  • Neave – Voter registration bill language, why is Sec 2.01 there?
    • Don’t want pre-filing of voter registration applications, want voter to fill it out themselves to ensure someone else is not filling it out in hopes of helping them vote
    • Voter individually needs to give information needed to complete the application, does not consider this an additional step but simply says person filing out application should supply the information
    • Neave – Gives certain examples such as wife filling out card for husband, notes problem with bill is it is open to interpretation
    • Neave – Asks what consequence is of violating 2.01, considers this language an extra barrier and obstacle
    • Disagrees with conclusions
  • Neave – Why this language?
    • Will hear witness testimony on voter harvesting
    • Registration process should lie with person registered to vote
    • No probation against assisting
  • Neave – Concerned that language in 2.01 is challenging to interpret
    • Supply can come from many places, but intent is that the person registered to vote should be participating in the process
  • Neave – Is there a criminal penalty?
    • Will need to review the code
    • But does say he did not intend that to be a criminal provision
  • Ashby noted they have a witness from AG and Secretary of State as resources to answer questions
  • Thinks most information on application is well known, C-1 is not intended in any way to interfere with person with a disability to vote and acknowledges that Neave sees a concern with that
  • Wants to promote voter participation and if sees language that causes difficulty to vote, he would want to pay attention to that
  • White – What is intent of the bill?
    • Uniformity and consistency throughout the state; that every legally cast ballot is counted
  • White – Ability or conditions to determine to do the audit?
    • Term of voting system equipment is meant to be broad and systems that can be audited
    • Audits occur on routine basis
    • Audit is meant to show equipment is working properly
  • White – When we have a disaster, what contingencies are out there for counties experiencing a disaster?
    • Current practice of curb side voting not touched in bill and believes protected under federal law
    • Goal is to say must meet criteria of curb side voting to use
  • White – Confirms personal medical information is not being requested in bill language
  • White – Early voting hours have been changed?
    • Increasing number of hours (from 5hrs to 6hrs)
    • Agrees population brackets increased as well
  • White – Can still cast vote while in line?
    • Yes, that can still occur
    • Bill language was to make that practice expressly clear
  • White – Regarding poll watchers, language that prohibits interference
    • Poll watchers cannot intervene
    • Meant to convey concern to judge
  • Ashby points to time and notes witness registration has been closed and 295 people have registered in the system
  • A Johnson – Asked about Section 3 provisions, eliminating some local powers and adopting ability of SOS to close locations
    • Intent is uniformity
  • A Johnson – Asked about reason why not including local county clerks to close polling place? Is there intent to exclude?
    • No, not trying to exclude local county clerks
  • A Johnson – Told by Governor that Harris only warranted one drop off spot. Saw drop off locations reduced and don’t want to see that happen to polling places
    • Not about ability to close but guidelines when closing
  • A Johnson – Said “polling place shall be conducted at least”, don’t see 24 hour prohibition on polling
    • Practice of full 24-hour voting period is not common practice and if one jurisdiction goes down that path, there will be non-uniformity
  • A Johnson – Said difference between urban and rural, when saying being uniform and consistent. Is that more important that voter access?
    • Both are important
    • Thinks that lack of consistency would impact statewide ballot candidates
    • Perhaps 24-hour voting availability is different from area that followed 8-hour
  • A Johnson – Calculates time available to vote at polls, feels time was doubled in rural area and asked why not do same in urban area if the desire is to be uniform and consistent
  • A Johnson – Provides alcohol to go example asking why we can’t learn from pandemic for elections as well
  • A Johnson – Are drive thru voters considered fraudulent?
    • Does not think equipment was set up for it
  • A Johnson – Says exact same machine for disabled individuals was used for drive thru voters, inspired by pandemic just like alcohol to go
  • A Johnson – What is defined as a building?
    • Not defined in code nor is structure
    • Thinks building is more understandable, typically a place of work where officials are working but stationary structure is broader
  • A Johnson – Is it your intention to stop Harris County from having new voting places and only having them at branch offices?
    • Speaks to a clerk office, if voting will be at the clerk’s office, doesn’t have to be in that office but can be anywhere in the building
  • A Johnson – Did you change the days for early voting?
    • Short answer is no, no change in days or weekend of early voting
  • A Johnson – Interested in preserving right to vote of those previously oppressed, don’t have a history of protecting the right to vote
  • A Johnson – Eliminated 24 hour voting and drive thru voting, do you know who took advantage of this?
    • Will let you explain this
  • A Johnson – Just think about it, mothers, caregivers, etc. This made it much easier for women to vote & this is getting taken away; communities of color took advantage of 24 hour voting
  • A Johnson – Didn’t touch early voting, where white people are the majority; would be nice to allow diverse urban communities increased access
  • Landgraf – When we’re talking about strict construction, it would go back to legislative intent?
    • Correct, this is the purpose of this provision
  • Landgraf – Information required on application to vote by mail must be supplied by person registering?
    • Correct
  • Landgraf – Strict construction wouldn’t have anything to do with the word supplied, correct?
    • Correct, in the application or the intent
  • Landgraf – Person can supply even through intermediary?
    • That’s my understanding
  • Landgraf – Opposite example would be someone stealing your info and using that, is this what the bill is designed to stop?
  • Neave – Legislation does not state “illegally supplied”
    • No, states it must be supplied by person desiring to vote
  • Neave – This is an issue in the drafting, creating another hurdle that people need to comply with and prove; trying to figure out the consequence, who determines how info is supplied
    • Happy to continue discussions on this language, Rep. Landgraf makes a valid point
    • Legality or consent language could provide additional guidance
  • Neave – Are you open to cleaning the language of this subsection?
    • Do not want there to be a barrier, open to ideas and suggestions
  • S Thompson – Can you describe a poll watcher?
    • Poll watcher is there to observe election officials and judge as they perform their duties, not there to watch individuals vote
    • End goal is for parties to have eyes and ears in polling locations to instill confidence
  • S Thompson – Are there qualifications?
    • I believe there are qualifications, must be appointed
  • S Thompson – Giving these people a large latitude and they have no training; highlights language requiring warning before removal
    • Can’t disagree that it is good for people to have information
    • Language is in response to anecdotes about removal of poll watchers
    • Presiding judge can call an LEO if watcher breaches peace or violates law, also requiring oath
  • S Thompson – What is the penalty?
    • Breach of peace is broad, LEOs can cite for disorderly conduct
    • Violation could be any provision of the election code and watcher could be removed
    • This provides guidance to presiding judges
  • S Thompson – Creating penalty for judges doing something wrong, but no penalties for poll watchers
    • Watchers don’t have duties beyond watching, judges have more responsibility
    • What type of training do you mean?
  • S Thompson – Shouldn’t a person have knowledge of what to look for beyond ‘irregularities?’
    • Would entertain language that would set forth training requirements
  • S Thompson – What is the definition of irregularities?
    • Not a defined term in the Election Code
  • S Thompson – What does it mean that poll watchers are to preserve the integrity of the ballot box?
    • References Constitution, ballots cast have been cast according to law, and those eligible have voted
  • S Thompson – Election officer could see jail time due to poll watcher seeing ‘irregularities,’ poll watchers have no penalty
    • Watchers have less responsibility, may not be present when a voter is voting, may not converse with voters; simply observe
  • S Thompson – Seems like an inconsistency, a lot of power to give person watching
    • Many poll watchers do a very good job, ones we hear about are outliers; could have situations where other criminal charges apply
  • S Thompson – What if a poll watcher makes something up and someone is charged with a misdemeanor and needs to hire a lawyer, etc., giving them a lot of latitude
  • S Thompson – Concerned about First Amendment violation if watchers can be close enough to see or hear
    • Goal is to address situations where opportunities to see and hear were limited, e.g., during COVID
    • May hear testimony that people were forced to be across the entire room
  • S Thompson – Had a poll watcher stand behind me, in African American and Latino communities they always send watchers that look like the Proud Boys; trying to intimidate & watcher should’ve been dismissed
    • Did you complain to any person there?
  • S Thompson – I think she left the room, didn’t need to complain because I was vocal enough; unsure if she came back, but mere presence of mean, tough-looking individual is bad
  • S Thompson – If she had training, she might’ve known that conduct was impermissible
  • S Thompson – If LEOs were called, nothing much would’ve happened, many would’ve left without casting vote
    • Don’t disagree
  • S Thompson – This is why I’m concerned about definition of ‘irregularity,’ concern is if watchers understand what this word means
  • S Thompson – Poll watchers have a lot of responsibility because they can follow ballots all the way through process
    • Yes, in current law they can follow in a separate vehicle
  • Bucy – Watchers aren’t allowed to watch a person vote, looking for a commitment for training that they understand they can’t do this
    • Very sincere when I say I look forward to having this conversation
  • Bucy – Concerning part is that this would need to happen again, and judge would need to witness to do something about this; second step shouldn’t be necessary
    • If that watcher violated existing statute by being in voting areas, they could be dismissed immediately
  • Bucy – Without an LEO?
    • No, with an LEO; might be better to have the LEO involved
  • Bucy – LEOs cannot always be obtained in a timely manner, will let others speak to effect of having an LEO present while they are voting there as well
  • Bucy – Highlights Texas’ previous expansions of voting rights, next big step is allowing online registration; hopes Murr would be amenable to an amendment
  • Bucy – Texas already has online registration, ID change is required to allow this
    • Not only can you do it physically, also speaking of online registration of vehicle?
  • Bucy – When you’re updating a license
    • Currently if someone goes online to update their license, DPS has said there is some capacity
  • Bucy – Yes, we already offer; did this after resisting a federal mandate for some time
  • Bucy – As we move through the bill, every question needs to center on voter access; trying to figure out what problem this bill is trying to solve
    • Trying to address nonuniformity in application of the election code
  • Bucy – We don’t mean 100% consistency because bill treats some areas different than others
    • No, and current election law recognizes this as well
  • Bucy – Feels like parts of this bill play into the national conspiracy theory that Donald Trump is president
    • Not what we’re doing, want to reduce likelihood of fraud
  • Bucy – Why are we banning photocopied signatures?
    • Was a HB by Rep. Harris, want to ensure proper signature is provided for validation
  • Bucy – Have you had a chance to talk with Coalition of Texans with Disabilities?
    • Intent is to visit when able
  • Bucy – Will hear from Bearden and other advocates on provisions allowing for disabilities, open to further conversation?
    • Happy to discuss this with advocacy groups
  • Bucy – Concern about info validation provisions, if a voter uses SSN some time ago and now uses driver’s license number could be denied
    • Clerks look into the numbers and check to ensure they match, in practice they would not be denied
  • Bucy – Intent is that voter can use any of the approved measures?
    • Correct, goal is to align voting by mail identification with in-person identification
  • Bucy – What happens if a voter doesn’t use the secrecy envelope?
    • There is language to cure defects given timeframe the application is received
    • Cure language is an SB by Sen. Zaffirini, allows for curing for a variety of reasons, but depends a little on when the envelope comes in
  • Bucy – For any defects?
    • Whatever is set forth in the bill, several pages on the cure
  • Bucy – On signature verification, removing need for 2 signatures
    • My interpretation is that this is an expansion of voter participation, allows for any known signature rather than 2
  • Bucy – Signature verification comm. and others can make and keep notes, why is this in there?
    • Gov Code prohibits distribution of PII, notes would need to be retained for 22 months
    • Happy to visit about protecting PII further
  • Lozano – Regarding the “enough to see and hear” provision, would a distance addition make it less subjective, e.g., 6 ft?
    • Open minded, though each polling place is different
  • Lozano – It is already allowed for watchers to follow ballots?
    • Yes, current law allows watchers to follow vehicles and observe materials
  • Moody – Red tape makes tasks difficult
    • Can be the case
  • Moody – Highlights how mistakes being made could make a person a felon; places in the bill have new criminal penalties
  • Moody – Have penalties for errors in completing form assisting the voter, is new info already being entered in by election officers?
    • I don’t think it is, important part is receipt of compensation as well
  • Moody – What is the harm where an assistant working for a campaign assists a voter who wanted to vote for that campaign?
    • We’re now aware of it, and other campaign knows as well; have a form like this makes it easier to know
  • Moody – Also makes it harder to vote; what happens to voter or assistant when there is a mistake on the form?
    • Falls to the election officer to ensure process has been completed
  • Moody – Have you or your office done any research on how this would impact voters of color? Any others?
    • Not aware
  • Moody – Do you think it’s important for the body to know how it would impact?
    • Important to consider all information known or available
  • Moody – Is it your intent to ask any governmental entity what the impact would be?
    • Have no hesitancy in asking this
  • Moody – Longer oath now for assistants, does this slow down polling places?
    • Don’t agree this would slowdown or delay
  • Moody – Why is the longer oath needed?
    • Increases confidence and assurance they are not influencing outcome
  • Moody – Are they liable for misinformation the voter represents to them? If the voter says they can’t read English, but it turns out they can, is the assistant facing a perjury charge?
    • Assistant attests to what voter represented
  • Moody – What happens to the voter?
    • Not aware of violation for voter; would ask for clarification from SOS
  • Moody – Asks after purpose of compensation attestation
    • Overall policy goal is to reduce fraud, potential for more fraud in these situations
  • Moody – Keep hearing of potential for fraud
  • Moody – Is it your contention that this will not have any impact on a legal voter?
    • Would not, would be helpful to know if someone is being compensated
  • Moody – Do you think criminal penalties chill assistants?
    • No, only discourage improper influence
  • Moody – Concerned there are ambiguities in bill that has criminal provisions, need to be cautious before moving too quickly on legislation like this
  • Moody – Voter assistance language, what is problem trying to address?
    • Goal is reduction of likelihood of fraud, especially if there is compensation to help voters
  • Moody – Continues asking about compensation and mens rea requirement being removed in this provision
  • Moody – Questions on vote harvesting
    • Murr – Folks who provide compensation for someone to interact in person in presence of ballot or during voting process and intending to deliver votes for a certain candidate
    • Discussion was if it happens at voters’ home/door
    • Section does not apply to interactions that don’t include presence of ballot
    • Don’t see instance where person knocks on door and ballot in house, it’s about compensation or person taking the ballot
  • Moody – What about engaging favorable voters
    • Does not see that as a felony under this provision
  • Moody – Would like to carve out that conduct
    • I have no hesitation to work on that
  • Moody – Asked about vote by mail
    • Observation why system is currently passive, circumstances may change for those who qualify to vote by mail and onus is on voter
    • If a proactive voter could have ballot in hand and show up at polls
    • Thinks Moody question is about chronic situation where they don’t need to request every election
  • Moody – Used to have to request every time, but now things we do by cycle, could we do more for disadvantaged populations?
  • Moody – Why criminalize this, why not training for public officials?
    • Had jurisdictions trying to be proactive but lost uniformity and consistency
  • Moody – Perjury option; no mens rea standard?
    •  Agree does not have intent to deceive language
  • Moody – Would bill have unintended consequence of prohibiting anything not expressly provided for? Caution towards ambiguity
  • Moody – Is there any research on how bill would cumulatively affect people of color?
    • Have not requested nor received any of that information
  • Longoria – Will review section 8, enforcement provisions
    • Trying to make sure there is priority given to election cases
    • In response to question on timeframe, reference language to on or before 70th day
    • Does not believe this will take large portion of courts time
    • Notes death penalty case will still maintain priority
  • Longoria and Murr continue discussion of priorities of cases courts would hear and precedence; Murr offers to dialogue further and instead possibly offer timeline
  • Longoria and Murr discuss frivolous lawsuits, ability to recover lawyer fees
    • Murr happy to visit on topic and want to discourage frivolous lawsuits
  • Landgraf and Murr continue discussion on priority of election cases
  • Landgraf notes action for temporary injunction is brief, Murr confirms
    • Murr says determination of facts need to be decided quickly as well
  • Landgraf notes these issues are usually “short and sweet” and do not clog up the system
  • Neave – Question on notice of unlawful voting, adding in notice of unlawful voting or registration
    • Current statute does this, but bill adds in registration for notice
  • Neave – False statement on registration is Class B misdemeanor so bill requires registrar to determine intent
  • Neave and Murr discuss office and ability to report ineligibility to vote
    • Voter registrars already make this decision now, but language just requires them to report it
  • Neave reads brief that says registrars give ability to cure or addressed, but bill language does not give 30-day widow
    • This deals only with notice, SOS collects and gathers data and think state would want this information
  • Murr and Neave discuss lack of details and data on this, Murr notes it is already a crime bill just requires reporting. Notes having data would be helpful.
  • Landgraf – Confirms provision in bill is just for registrar, also does not require a determination to be made
  • Bucy – Article 9 discussion on accidents not being prosecuted as a crime
  • Bucy wants notification that individual has regained right to vote; wants a mandate to do this
  • Murr and Bucy discuss notifications, when being released from criminal system, and how it would be done best
    • Would be a challenge to do this with consistency but open to discussion with Bucy on how to do it
  • Bucy – What sections are being repealed in bill language?
    • Penalty for illegal compensation of voters and temporary branch voting polling places (goes back to discussions on movable structures)
  • A Johnson – Goes back to Bucy and Murr discussion on notice
    • Murr points out parole is different from probation, would be difficult to keep up with but happy to front load that knowledge at the start
    • Can language in here be similar to language on weapons and make it class C
    • Murr says he will ponder and interesting point
  • Meza – Want to protect vote for people who have right to vote and feels legislation is trying to deny their right to vote. Story of concerns: opposing candidates running license plates of voters and conducting voter intimidation, people being told wrong voting place to vote, and issue with provisional ballots.

 

Invited Testimony

Heather Hawthorne, County and District Association of Texas – Neutral

  • Thinks this bill has come a long way since January
  • Here to point out concerns
  • Wants nation to know and feel confident about elections in Texas
  • Clardy – Want people to be able to go vote, ask about importance of taking care of people who are running the election and impact of bill to them
    • Poll workers made up of each political party and paid a small amount
    • Train workers
    • Want judges to be treated with respect and have rest as well (24-hour poll concern)
    • Want consistency and agrees with word uniformity
  • Clardy – You all are doing logistics, work closely with chairs of both party to get people to locations
    • Yes
  • Clardy – Concerned about criminalization of people that work in elections, are you concerned of chilling effect?
    • Absolutely
    • Concerned of criminalizing for an honest mistake and know it’s scary in urban areas where it is getting harder and harder to find election judges
  • Poll watchers are so vital to the process but have to train them
  • Thompson – Thanks her for service, wants voters to be able to vote without intimidation but some come to her polls who treat voters poorly
  • Thompson – Concerned poll watchers trampling others rights, poll watchers need training and to know how not to infringe on voters rights
  • Provided handout with other concerns to committee

 

Chris Davis, Texas Association of Election Administrators – Neutral

  • What a difference a session makes and what a difference a committee makes
  • Here to discuss process not politics
  • Reviews several recommendations
  • Discusses possibility of having poll watcher from area
  • Appreciates Murr discussion of training of poll watchers, already have poll worker training that poll watchers could participate in
  • Section of bill requiring matching numbers of SSN and/or DL, seeing a lot of counties where voters have one but not the other (1.9 million have one or the other but not both)
    • Proposes remedy
  • Does not think PII should be shared, have it retained and exempt release of SSN and DL
  • Good things have been reintroduced into bill
  • Bucy – Have you had any issues with unruly poll watchers in Williamson?
    • Yes with 11th hour appointments, have an agenda and looking for something wrong
    • Majority are not disruptive but not having training comes into conflict with judge mandate to maintain the peace
    • Appreciates Murr oath language and confirm eligibility of poll watchers
  • Bucy – Was anything done in 2020 to keep voters safe, that they could no longer do with bill?
    • Not sure
  • Bucy – What does bill do and not do in emergency situations? Example of water main break in a site, etc.
    • Can do something temporary now but hope can still do so under bill
  • Clardy – Asked about records, could statute be tweaked to stay records and notes can be made but stay with office and cannot be copied
    • Agree that would be something they are amendable to

 

Savannah Kumar, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas – Against

  • This is a voter suppression bill; raises administrative barriers and threats to voters
  • Drastically cuts down on mail-in ballots and voting times
  • Adds vague criminal offenses to the election code
  • Undermines protections for those entitled to vote by mail
  • If voters make minor mistakes in vote by mail applications, can be immediately rejected
  • Section 5.09 does not allow curing of defects in DL number or SS number
  • Gives partisan poll watchers ability to intimidate voters without worrying they will have to leave; have a “free pass” unless an election judge or clerk sees it themselves
  • Bill restricts aid for those with disabilities or those who do not speak English as their first language through the new oath language
    • Voters should not be lawyers/prosecutors
    • Bill creates a criminal penalty of perjury for related offenses

 

Chuck DeVore, TPPF – For

  • Is bipartisan support for election integrity, importance of poll watchers, and 91% of Republicans support representatives from each party at the polling place
  • Could be improvement in ID requirements for mail-in ballots
  • Supports signature verification in the law, signature rejection rates
  • Especially in the RGV, signature rejection rates are extremely high
  • 140 individuals from 2005-2020 prosecuted for voter fraud, half were mail-in ballot fraud; 44 currently indicted
  • AG’s office has only had one prosecutor for election fraud, recently added two more
  • Pending cases; most are from the 2018 election, 1 from 2008, and 1 from 2020
    • These are complicated cases, take long to investigate
  • In Victoria, a person was charged with multiple counts of voter fraud in a TWDB election
    • A small number of votes could have overturned this election
  • A Johnson – What is the timeline for cases? Where are they?
    • COVID-19, courts delayed cases
    • Time delay in cycle fraud allegedly occurred and conviction is 2-3 years
    • All across the state
    • Most are from 2018
  • A Johnson – What percentage of those cases are versus total ballots cast?
    • Would take effort to look in to; would not be privy to that information
  • A Johnson – Not true, it is public record
  • A Johnson – If you are providing evidence about alleged voter fraud, and stating that local DAs are not prosecuting, why have you not called the Texas Rangers?
    • If the legislature had more appropriations, then that number of voter fraud would go up
  • A Johnson – That is not the DA’s jurisdiction, you do not have the numbers to suggest this is a legitimate concern
  • Klick – Have you gathered information on a local or federal level on voter fraud cases?
    • No
  • Klick and DeVore discuss a former DA who lost their election after bringing up voter fraud concerns
  • Geren – Are you saying DAs chose to not prosecute voter fraud cases?
    • Do not see a lot of county effort to do so
  • Geren – A lot of those cases were in Republican counties?
    • Yes, AG’s office prosecutes
  • Geren – You are saying AG has to prosecute these cases; you support this initiative?
    • Yes

 

Chase Bearden, Coalition of Texans with Disabilities – On

  • Health and ability to vote can change between elections
  • Want to work on this bill and add amendments
  • With assistance restrictions in the bill, should be working to make it more accessible
    • Too prescriptive; people should ask for what kind of help they need
  • Signature verification has been an issue in the community; 3,746 votes were thrown out last session
  • No remote way to cure; would have to go into a poll place
    • Purpose of mail-in voting is you cannot get there
    • Tracking program Hughes and Bucy worked on would be a good place to verify your signature
  • Need to provide ADA compliant ballot for the visually blind
  • Thanks for the House not changing curbside voting; have concerns with Senate’s provisions
  • Voter registration should be accessible online
  • Need to ensure incorrect data can be corrected quickly and remotely; should not be a felony the first time
  • Family member exemption if they did not sign, would not be thrown out; would like attendants provision to stay in
  • Appreciate taking out having to state what disabilities you have; House version is better than the Senate version
  • Bucy – Signature provisions sufficient?
    • Would like to see allowing people to use a signature stamp
    • SOS says it is unlawful
    • Applications should not have to be completely handwritten
  • Moody – Ambiguity in provision for attendant/caregiver, want to ensure that is kept
    • Used to get grants from the SOS to educate the disability community; state could do a better job to educate people, this is confusing

 

James Slattery, Texas Civil Rights Project – Against

  • SOS reported the 2020 election was a success/secure
  • Texas is the hardest state to vote in
  • No online voter registration: 750 polling places have been closed particularly in minority communities
  • HB 3 does nothing to secure elections, but furthers the big lie
  • Bill cuts voting hours and drive thru voting; used mostly by minorities
  • Ironic we are in a hearing right now, as it is past the proposed voting cut off
  • Provisions reflect a discriminatory intent; have been told multiple times by multiple sources showing proof of their negative impact
  • Pandemic is not over, is not a good reason to do away with these measures
  • Partisan poll watchers have historically threatened voters of color; provides an example of a Republican poll watcher training that targeted minorities in Harris County
  • Matching process for DL and SSN needlessly complicates things
    • Could be an issue for those moving into the state
    • Conversations with the SOS is not enough, need in statute to ensure this does not negatively impact voting
  • Should enact online voter registration, registration closer in time to elections, expand mail-in ballots eligibility
  • Need to codify Governor’s COVID-19 order extending voting by a week
  • Bucy – How recent was that Harris County incident?
    • Before 2020 election
  • Bucy – Speak on signature verification?
    • They can change based upon disability, but also can generally vary wildly
    • Have challenged this in the courts
  • Bucy – Concerns about who can distribute vote by mail applications?
    • Troubling not even those 65 and over would receive one
    • “Solicit” is too vague
    • Do not support the provision that prevents the use of public funds to prevent third parties from distributing applications
  • Klick – Concerns about numbers not matching up, could be cured by providing both?
    • Maybe, but not sure

 

Don Garner, Texas Faith & Freedom Coalition – For

  • Nothing suppresses voters like lack of voter confidence in the process
  • Other things like voter ID were considered voter suppression, but voter turnout has increased
  • 24-hour voting and drive thru are not considered by the legislature
  • HB 3 mainly clarifies areas of ambiguity; are common sense

 

Nina Perales, Mexican American Legal Defense – Against

  • Sections in the bill place unnecessary/oppressive restrictions for the assistors
  • Could have a disparate impact on Mexican American and Asian American communities
  • Could slow down the voting process
  • Provisions do not match up with concerns about election integrity
  • Violate sections of the federal Voting Rights Act; voter does not have to have a claim for eligibility and does not require an oath of narrow assistance
  • Poll watchers are already allowed by law to watch proceedings
  • Provisions giving them more freedom will only result in intimidation, especially of Latino voters
  • Removal after only a warning is irrational
  • Moody – Important for this body to understand how these provisions would impact minority voters?
    • Yes, voter ID law was struck down by a federal court, did not increase voter turnout
  • Moody – Intent of the bill may not matter, need to know the impact
    • Impact study should have been done for the voter ID law
    • Would have avoided lengthy litigation
  • Moody – What would you say to those who say we do not have the ability to do so?
    • It can be done, and is done in litigation
  • Neave – Provides an anecdote of their naturalized father who needs assistance
  • Neave – Speak on voter assistance rights?
    • Conflicts with the American Disabilities Act and Voting Rights Act
    • Would render HB 3 provisions invalid
  • Neave – What is the practical effect of poll watcher provisions?
    • There will be voter intimidation
  • Neave – Removal of poll watcher?
    • Poll place official may go to jail for attempting to keep order
    • Far fewer will work as officials if they believe they will be prosecuted for keeping order

 

Resource Witnesses Panel

 

Kristina Atkins, Office of SOS – On

Keith Ingram, Office of SOS – On

Jonathan White, Office of AG – On

 

  • A Johnson – Counties have the ability to prosecute voter fraud? How many? Would the AG’s office know how to search these cases? Have not done so?
    • White – Yes and do not know
    • White – Have not
  • A Johnson – Asks about the AG’s website page that states election fraud cases; since 2006, over 80 million cast ballots, are 500 fraudulent ballots the AG’s office has found
  • A Johnson – Is a greater chance getting struck by lightning
  • A Johnson – If there is a fraudulent DA, should investigate them; a certain organization came in and suggested DAs offices were not investigating
    • White – Would not disparage any DA’s office
    • White – Sometimes cases are not heard due to priority of other cases
  • Clardy – What is your experience? Have cases grown over time?
    • White – Have been working on election fraud for 14 years and cases have grown over time
  • Clardy – Number of cases that are prosecuted do not total the likely amount of fraud out there
  • Clardy – Are there greater concerns for stability/reliably of elections now?
    • White – Yes, have greater concerns now
  • Clardy – This is not just about larger elections, it’s also about smaller ones; do not care about number of cases, want you to do your job
  • Bucy – How does the office investigate? Discusses the Rogers case in Harris County and the Crystal Mason case. It seems like honest mistakes are going to jail
    • Based on complaints; cannot discuss current cases
    • Fix provisional ballot affirmation to make clear they have read the law
  • Bucy – Would HB 3523 allow the AG’s office to tell them when they can vote again?
    • Will know when released from parole/probation
    • Could put expected date to vote on judge’s official order
  • Bucy – Database of felons and when they can vote
    • Ingram – Do have a list to ensure those who are felons cannot register
    • Bucy – One day we will maybe get to no one losing their right to vote
  • Bucy – Asks about cure period?
    • Ingram – Should say information that comes from the voter registration file
  • Bucy – Can we get that language in the bill?
  • Bucy – What makes the voting process less secure after 10pm?
    • White – No change
  • Bucy – Asks a number of questions about 24-hour voting
  • Jetton – HB 3 that addresses the TDCJ roll
    • White – Can already address that
    • White – All matches are sent to the county even if they are weak; do not want to remove without verification
  • Jetton – Asks about complaints
    • White – Will review complaints and determine if investigation is warranted; 90% are from individuals
  • Jetton – Most victims are what demographic? Current language could help protect those
    • White – Elderly, low income and often minority
    • White – Some could increase the pressure on vote harvesting and ballot fraud
  • Jetton – Any additional language you want to see?
    • White – Do not see a civil remedy component
  • Neave – Does the AG’s office think there are free elections? Do you think they were secure?
    • Is a qualified answer
    • Were in the main, but there was fraud
  • Neave – Public confidence has been undermined?
    • Have seen reversal of elections; cannot say they have occurred without fraud
  • Neave – Concerns about the effects of this bill for minorities, those with disabilities or senior citizens?
    • Have not studied those
  • Neave asks the same questions of Ingram
    • Elections were secure and get more secure every year
  • Neave – Bill is requesting a legislative finding there has been an undermining of public confidence, agree?
    • There have been polls to that regard
    • Have not studied disproportionate impact on those groups

 

Spotlight on Public Testimony on HB 3

484 witnesses in total were registered, 407 against, 65 for, and 12 neutral

 

Brian Sunderland, Opportunity Solutions Project – For

  • Work nationwide on election reforms
  • Supports following provisions:
    • Strengthens integrity of mail ballots; same ID requirements as in-person
    • Increase penalties for election officials
    • Bans vote harvesting
    • Prohibits the solicitation of mail-in ballots
    • Ensures poll watchers can view the process
    • Adds voter roll protections

 

David Greggs, Self – Against

  • From Dallas, election judge for 27 years
  • Concerned about reducing the opportunities to participate
  • Giving more power to poll watchers takes away power from election official
  • Senators were open to training for poll watchers similarly to poll workers
  • Need education, not penalties

 

Gary Bledsoe, Texas NAACP – Against

  • SB 1 is anti-black and anti-brown
  • Will eliminate minority election judges
  • A Johnson – Could you tell us how this would have a disproportionate impact on minorities?
    • Primarily minorities who take advantage of irregular hours; rural counties get an extra hour while urban counties get one less
    • Taking out drive thru voting would negatively affect women, minorities, and the elderly
    • Discusses the Rogers and Crystal Mason cases; will be on the record that Crystal is innocent
    • These prosecutions will deter minority vote
    • A few years back, a poll watching group interrogated a black group on why they voted absentee
    • Could deter assistors as well
    • Poll watchers are now “large and in charge” and insulated from being removed
  • Landgraf – Hometown?
    • Odessa
  • Thompson – Asks to add their testimony to the record

 

Heiwa Salovitz, ADAPT of Texas, PACT, and Self – Against

  • Vehemently against the bill
  • Thinks they need to see the people this bill is affecting
  • More than 3 million disabled in Texas
  • This would send Texas back decades
  • There will be many unintended consequences on the disability community, black and Latino communities
  • People will be intimidated and afraid to go to polls

 

Richard Beaule, Self – Against

  • Bureaucratic weasel voice is how he would describe this years’ voter fraud
  • Is there more fraud in the last hour or on Sabbath?
  • Constitution is supposed to protect overreaching
  • HB 3 sets state back for the entrenchment and denial of vote to citizens
  • Convict those who violated laws, not scare people into not voting

 

Carla Fleming Jones, Member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc and Self – Against

  • Member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc
  • Not considering the will of the people
  • Every eligible citizen should be allowed to participate in voting
  • Texas has more stringent voting laws than any other state in union

 

Myth Kervin, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc and Self – Against

  • These is suppressive legislation to voting process
  • The black community will continue to push through obstacles put in their way of voting
  • Don’t throw out our votes

 

Delisha Boyd, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc and Self – Against

  • Told story of her ancestors that didn’t have the right to vote and who fought for this right

 

Michele Brown, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc and Self – Against

  • The proposed bill limits access to ballot box
  • This legislation disproportionately impacts people of color
  • This is a Jim Crow law

 

Irene Musette, Self – Against

  • Curbside voting needed in her community because of all the seniors
  • Unclear on what the poll watchers correct

 

Jeanne Ball, Self – Against

  • Had a ballot board judge who got covid from a poll watcher who would not wear a mask

 

Cheri Ballmeza, Self – Against

  • System is not broken, doesn’t need a fix

 

Robert L. Green, Travis County Republican Voting Committee and Self – For

  • Heard other testimony about impact and impact studies
  • Wonders how you can have an impact study for something that hasn‘t happened yet
  • It is not voter suppression to ask for proof of citizenship and a photo government ID to vote
  • There could be some improvements to help people with disabilities
  • Not in favor of 24-hour voting
  • Has run many polling stations and never seen a watcher abuse or meddle

 

Gary Munro, Self – For

  • Has more evidence of voter fraud then federal and state agencies who looked into it
  • Has list of hundreds of names of dead people who voted
  • Harris County is the problematic county

 

Glen Maxey, Texas Democratic Party and Self – Against

  • Many areas of bill that needs clarification and flushing out
  • In section 201, requires that all information on ballot be provided by voter which will end programs that send prefilled ballots
  • Have 13 sections that he supports strongly on the bill
  • Wants the 12 other voting bills being brought up this session to pass instead
  • Ashby – The last one is a good recommendation

 

David Billings, Stand Up Republic of Texas and Self – Against

  • Highlights public opinion on voting laws, need to protect Texas voting

 

Kathaleen Wall, Self – For

  • Worked elections in Harris County or over 10 years
  • Spent $32 million dollars, about 20$ per person who voted in Harris County, hired 150 people to only get 400 people to vote
  • Have offered curbside voting for years, upon request, just have to ask and they will bring the disabled cart out to the car
  • In favor of keeping signature verification on all ballots
  • Turned in proof of fraud and instead of going to DA it went to court

 

Rep. Murr closes 

  • Moody – Asks Murr to think about testimony and ways it could be incorporated into a CS
    • Ashby – Intention is to consider amendments and vote out bill now
    • Murr – Will be politely declining any committee amendments that are offered, but will look at floor amendments that are offered
  • Ashby – Do you have copies of the amendments
    • Murr – Have seen them, but don’t have copies in front of me

 

HB 3 Committee Amendments 

  • CA 1 Neave – Strikes registrar referral to AG
    • Neave – Had discussions related to registration of voters and how registrar will refer huge volume of people for supposed unlawful voting, would have large impact on minority communities
    • CA 1 fails (5-8) 
  • CA 2 A Johnson – Strikes out hours needing to be 6 AM and 10 AM
    • A Johnson – Deals with sections adding more hours for districts with 1,000 voters and one more hour to 55k; does not properly reflect population growth of urban centers
    • Lozano – This would be for every county in Texas?
      • Yes, cuts requirement of 6 AM to 10 PM, larger jurisdictions could use 24 hour voting
    • CA 2 fails (5-9) 
  • CA 3 Bucy – Extends allowable hours for voting from 10 PM to 11:59 PM
    • Bucy – Goal is to cater to those with different work schedules
    • CA 3 fails (5-9) 
  • CA 4 S Thompson – Reduces penalties for misconduct
    • S Thompson – Reducing most penalties to lower-level misdemeanors
    • White – All of your proposals, do they deal with election officers?
      • S Thompson – Not sure
    • White – Sensitive to the spirit; election officers should be a little sharper, sensitive to the mens rea concept if it’s not an election officer
    • Clardy – This CA is for every portion of the bill with a criminal penalty, some are for people who are not election officials
      • S Thompson – Yes, just moving away from jailing
    • Clardy – I have a concern for some of these; we can bring amendments back on the floor of the House, we can look at these criminal penalties again either in the same floor amendment or one at a time
    • Moody – Did you reduce criminal penalties applicable to poll watchers?
      • S Thompson – No, there are no penalties for poll watchers
    • Moody – Correct, so of all the people involved, the only people we didn’t create penalties for are the poll watchers
    • Ashby – This is why I asked Rep. Murr if he had copies because we will likely see some of these again
    • White – Hopefully, when I visit with the author we can determine why we’re increasing penalties
    • Ashby – I think there’s a lot of interest in working on these
    • S Thompson – Will withdraw the CA and offer it on the floor
    • CA 4 withdrawn (subsequent CAs renumbered by committee) 
  • CA 4 Moody – Takes mens rea language from Penal Code and applies to certain oaths under the bill
    • Moody – Discussed this several hours ago about how we don’t have mens rea comparable to mens rea in Penal Code for perjury
    • Moody – CA 5 takes the mens rea from the Penal Code and transplants this into the oath for assistants
    • White – There is an offense already?
      • Moody – There is a new offense of perjury in connection with certain election procedures in HB 3
    • Clardy – Not sure if applicable and makes the offense harder to meet, should look deeper into this
      • Moody – Mens rea used in CA 5 has existed for decades, used almost across the board
    • Bucy – Should be hard to send people to jail for this offense
    • CA 4 fails (5-9) 
  • CA 5 Longoria – Deletes sections expediting certain allegations over other legal matters
    • A Johnson offers for Rep. Longoria – The worry is that spurious allegations will be made and provided fast track through the courts
    • CA 5 fails (5-9) 
  • CA 6 Neave – Requires SOS to conduct study by 2023 to evaluate impact of provisions of this act creating offenses or increasing penalties on different racial and ethnic group
    • Neave – Have been asking repeatedly on impact of provisions on Latinos and African Americans
    • CA 6 fails (6-8) 

HB 3 voted out (9-5)