The House Committee on State Affairs met on April 17, 2019, to take up a number of bills. This report covers HB 35 (Romero), HB 168 (Canales), HB 445 (Gonzalez), HB 652 (Neave), HB 1035 (Zedler), HB 2266 (Anchia), HB 3172 (Krause), HB 3811 (Martinez Fischer), and HB 3813 (Martinez Fischer).

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing 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.


HB 2266 (Anchia) Relating to the repeal of certain provisions governing state and local enforcement of immigration laws and other provisions related to immigration law.

  • Will repeal SB 4, aka the “show me your papers please” bill.
  • SB 4 and bills like it have degraded trust between local communities and law enforcement.
  • Number of Latinos reporting crimes have decreased despite increases among the general population in crime reporting after the passage of these bills.
  • By forcing police officers into de facto immigration enforcement agents, it reduces the effectiveness of policing efforts and creates an underclass who cannot access police services.


Louis Figueroa, Center for Public Policy Priorities – For

  • SB 4 provides a danger to the Texas economy. Immigrants make up a large portion of the Texas labor force, legislation such as this threatens sensible immigration policy.


Robert Hyman, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • SB 4 fundamentally misunderstands the values of Texas. Texas is at its best when it is inclusive, SB 4 creates a false sense of protection at the expense of what makes Texas great.


Rosa Avila, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • Supports the repeal of SB 4. People are scared to report crimes and call the police.
  • Raymond – Can you give some examples of racism?
    • Avila – Someone in community was stopped and asked about immigration status due to appearance. Did not commit any infraction, was just asked about immigration status.
    • Raymond – Comment on any examples when someone was afraid to call the police?
    • Avila – Victim of domestic violence did not report to the police due to immigration status.


Maria Isolde, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • SB 4 makes students fearful of attending school and college.


Lisa Humphrey, ADL Austin – For

  • This would allow local police departments implement their own policies without becoming de facto ICE agents. This would promote community safety.


Irma Cruz, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • Testimony in Spanish, had a translator.
  • Raymond – Parliamentary inquiry, are we asking translators to register to prevent potential points of order?
    • Phelan – Yes.
    • Raymond – Would that imply that you intend to vote on this bill?
    • Phelan – That is to be determined.
  • Laws should not be based on people’s skin color, support the repeal of SB 4. SB 4 has only increased the racial divide in the state and the country.


David Carter, self – Against

  • Unfortunate that people who have come here in violation of laws are afraid of being deported but seems wrong to let people who break the laws stay in the state out of pity.
  • Raymond – Have you ever seen someone hire an undocumented immigrant?
    • Carter – Yes, I have.
    • Raymond – So US citizens are knowingly violating federal laws, is that right?
    • Carter – There is no law to effectively enforce that because it is so easy to put a fake social security card in a file folder.
    • Raymond – Should we pass some state laws enforcing that federal law?
    • Carter – That is not the bill I am testifying on.
    • Raymond – Many of the people who end up in this country without legal status are being drawn here by US citizens who are hiring them, so do you think the state legislature should pass laws to prosecute US citizens who hire illegal immigrants?
    • Carter – That is not the state’s job.
    • Raymond – See a double standard here. Do you think illegal immigrants should be able to work?
    • Carter – No, I want them to go back home.
    • Raymond – One way to prevent them from working would be to punish and prosecute US citizens who hire them, would you support that?
    • Carter – That is not on the table today, that is not what I am here to testify on.


Julia Garibay, United We Dream – For

  • SB 4 is racist and has caused documented immigrants to be detained.


Rachana Chen, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops – For

  • Allow police to focus on local safety needs of their communities, not federal immigration laws.


Montserrat Garibay, Texas AFL-CIO – For

  • Abbott and Paxton are racists who perpetrate attacks against immigrant communities.
  • Compared SB 4 to the Holocaust.


Fatima Menendez, MALDEF – For

  • SB 4 diverts resources from serous criminals to immigrants who pose no threat to safety.


Victoria De La Cruz, Texas Organizing Project – For

  • SB 4 could destroy the families of immigrants. 11 year-old daughter was detained and taken to a detention center as a result of this law.


Herminia Mendoza, Workers’ Defense – For

  • SB 4 has caused the community to live in constant fear. Children are fearful while in school. Has separated families and decreased trust in law enforcement.
  • Guerra – You said there are people who have been profiled because of the way they look or the color of their skin, have there been people who are US citizens that were profiled in such a way?
    • Mendoza – Yes, many peoples in the community have been through this, including US citizens who have been racially profiled.


Claudia Yoli Ferla, United We Dream – For

  • Police officers acting like immigration officials make communities less safe.


Anna Gonzalez, Workers’ Defense – For

  • SB 4 creates fear and distrust of law enforcement officers. The law unfairly targets people who look like Latino immigrants, even if they are citizens.


Myra Ibarra, United We Dream – For

  • SB 4 has negatively effected communities, family members have been afraid to call the police.


Faye Collie, American Immigration Lawyers Association – For

  • Litigation is ongoing on the constitutionality of SB 4. AILA has concerns with the constitutionality of detainers. Also concerned with 1st amendment issues in SB 4 concerning endorsement by local officials.


Anchia closing comments

  • There are US citizens who do not speak English, those are the kind of people who get targeted by SB 4.
  • Can’t have it both ways, immigrants are a huge part of what makes Texas great.
  • Guerra – What infuriates me is that the Tejano monument has my mother’s brand on the horse. My family has been in the US and Texas since 1750. I see the pain, the idea that my children or I could be pulled over and asked if I am a US citizen is appalling.
  • This is about who we are as a state. San Antonio is not called St. Anthony and the Rio Grande is not called Big River. Spanish heritage is part of America.


HB 2266 left pending.


HB 3811 (Martinez Fischer) Relating to the enforcement by certain local governmental entities and campus police departments of state and federal laws governing immigration.

  • Related to SB 4, part of that legislation prohibits local law enforcement from adopted a policy the limits the enforcement of immigration laws. That section of the law was determined by 5th circuit court to be in violation of first amendment rights of local elected officials.
  • Bill would bring SB 4 in line with the court’s ruling on its constitutionality.


Andy Segovia, City Attorney for City of San Antonio – For

  • Word “endorse” limits core political speech, which violates the first amendment.
  • A local sheriff might be in violation of SB 4 by making certain statements in a press conference, testifying before a legislative committee, etc.
  • Elected officials and appointed officials do not have to follow the same standard as a result of SB 4. For example, an elected sheriff does not have to follow certain provisions while an appointed police chief does.
  • This bill would provide appointed officials the same protections as elected officials afforded by the 5th circuit ruling.


Stephanie Gariconian, Worker’s Defense – For

  • Oppose SB 4 in its entirety. HB 3813 is specifically important because it deals with provisions in SB 4 that were overly vague and in violation on constitutionality.


Martinez Fischer closing comments

  • Narrowly removing the enforcement provision would be beneficial.


HB 3811 left pending.

HB 3813 (Martinez Fischer) Relating to the removal from office of a public officer of a political subdivision for policies or actions regarding immigration enforcement.

  • Another narrow carve-out of SB 4. Strikes a provision that allows state to pursue civil action to remove an official who violates SB 4.
  • There are general ground for removal of officials laid out in the local government code.
  • There has not been a civil action against a local official under this law.


Andy Segovia, City Attorney for City of San Antonio – For

  • Removal of an elected official is an extraordinary remedy and has an adverse effect on the democratic process. Should only be used when there is a clear reason for removal.
  • Removal of office is especially suspect when it is related to such a politically divisive issue.
  • Threat of removal from office impedes officials from properly doing their jobs.


Stephanie Gariconian, Workers’ Defense – For

  • SB 4 was a punitive piece of legislation meant to send a message to certain communities that they would never truly be a part of Texas.
  • Section of SB 4 allowing the AG to bring a civil suit against an elected official who he deemed to be in violation of the law was one of the most punitive measures in the law.
  • Civil penalties other than removal from office are enough to deter breaking the law.
  • Removal from office should be reserved for the most serious betrayals of public trust.


David Carter, self – Against

  • There has been a lot of mischaracterization of SB 4. It only covers stops by law enforcement when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal violation.
  • SB 4 simply stops the cities from telling officers that they cannot ask about immigration status.


Martinez Fischer closing comments

  • Not sure we could have a debate like SB 4 in this session with the way the legislature has worked together.
  • This law looks at narrow but significant ways to make changes.


HB 3813 left pending.


HB 35 (Romero) Relating to the creation of a Texas conditional driver’s permit, provisional Texas conditional driver’s permit, and Texas conditional instruction permit; authorizing a fee.

  • CS laid out
  • DPS estimates there are about 1.4m undocumented immigrants who could apply for this type of permit.
  • This would allow for hard-working, tax-paying people to get a conditional driver’s permit.
  • Have to prove identity when getting an I-10 from the IRS. I-10 would be required in order to get the permit.
  • These permits would provide a boon to the economy by boosting the spending power and ability to contribute of undocumented immigrants.
  • States such as Utah have seen benefits from similar legislation.
  • I-10 is required because it proves that the person applying wants to pay taxes and live in America.
  • King – Can you get auto insurance without a license?
    • Romero – Yes, but at a higher rate.
  • Many people driving have never taking a driving test, making the roads much more dangerous.


Robert Hyman, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • Step forward in meeting a critical need for a huge portion of the population that lacks access to drivers’ licenses and permits.
  • Will facilitate people being able to open bank accounts and get away from payday lenders.
  • Bill is in some ways too limited, would urge the committee to bring it closer to the process in New Mexico, which has made New Mexico safer and more prosperous.


Maria Isolde, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • Driving is critical to basic needs, many people are forced to drive without a license because they do not have the needed documentation. This makes driving more dangerous and expensive.


Rose Avila, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • Bill would expand the economy and social well being of the immigrant community.


Irma Cruz, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • Will make the roads safer for everyone. Unlicensed drivers are 5 times more likely to be in a fatal accident.


Elizabeth Wright, Justice for Our Neighbors – For

  • Works with clients who are working hard to become legal residents. Cannot drive without a license as it would jeopardize their ability to get legal status.


Juan Carlos Serra, Texas Business Immigration Coalition – For

  • This bill will create jobs and maintain Texas’ economic competitiveness.


Nneka Chapman, ACLU of Texas – For

  • Bill would stimulate the economy and reduce costs associated with uninsured and unlicensed motorists.
  • Currently you cannot become insured without a license. Around 2m drivers have no insurance.


Julietta Garibay, United We Dream – For

  • Immigrants will continue to drive without a license. Have the choice between allowing immigrants to get licenses or forcing them to live in fear of deportation.


Caitlin Parsons, Justice for Our Neighbors – For

  • Many immigrants cannot get a license and will not drive illegally because they know that it will prevent them from getting citizenship and might end in deportation.
  • People who take the time to get an I-10 and take the time to take a driving test clearly respect legal system and institutions.

Karen Reyes, self – For

  • Path to deportation for many illegal immigrants begins when driving without licenses.


Faye Collie, American Immigration Lawyers Association – For

  • Will provide relief for legal immigrants, who will be able to get a temporary permit while waiting for proof of their legal status to be verified.


Fidel Guzman, Workers’ Defense – For

  • Had a friend who worked in construction, was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, was detained for driving without a license has served eight months in jail because he was unable to pay the fine.


Katherine Young, self – On

  • Understand this is a conditional license, would this give the ability to vote?
    • Hernandez – Recommend you talk to the author of the bill.


Romero closing comments

  • Bill states that the conditional permits are valid proof of identity for driving purposes only, they are not valid for any other state or federal purposes. It could not be used to register to vote.
  • Vast majority of resident’s in Romero’s neighborhood are undocumented.
  • This is not a driver’s license for all bill, it is a big leap for the immigrant community who decide they want to identify themselves.


CS withdrawn, HB 35 left pending

HB 652 (Neave) Relating to an exception from requirements to assist or cooperate with federal immigration officers for matters regarding activities that occur at a domestic violence shelter.

  • Will help protect victims of family violence.
  • This bill will protect domestic violence shelters in the same way places of worship are protected from SB 4.
  • This will keep communities safe and remove the fear many have of reporting domestic violence.


Robert Hyman, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • This should be a relatively easy fix if the state of Texas is truly concerned about safety.
  • All of SB 4 should be repealed, but as long it stands these kinds of measures will shave down on its worst impacts and measures.
  • ICE agents already do not enforce around domestic violence shelters, this bill would bring state law in line with existing federal practice.


Rosa Avila, Border Defense Network for Human Rights – For

  • Victims do not want to go to shelters because the fear they will be investigated for legal status.

Maria Isolde, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • Bill would reduce the fear of reporting domestic violence, which was caused by SB 4.


Irma Cruz, self – For

  • Was a victim of domestic violence, was helped by a domestic violence shelter.


David Carter, self – For

  • There is a single exception in SB 4 for places of worship, this bill adds domestic violence shelters in to that exception.


Laurie Cook Heffron, National Association of Social Workers – For

  • Immigrant women face increased risk of domestic violence. Fear of law enforcement decreases the number of immigrant women who seek help.


Sadie Hernandez, United We Dream – For

  • Abusers often use legal status as a way to threaten and continue their abuse.


Julietta Garibay, United We Dream – For

  • Domestic violence shelters should be places of protection and safety.


Faye Collie, American Immigration Lawyers Association – For

  • Bill will make sure domestic violence shelters remain safe.


Neave closing comments

  • The House can make meaningful changes on the lives of women.
  • Need these women to come forward to make sure we can hold abusers accountable.
  • Raymond – Spend a lot of time working with a women’s shelter, have been involved with this issue for a long time. This legislation is very meaningful, hope colleagues who supported SB 4 can find it in their hearts and Christian values to support this bill which will save women’s lives.


HB 652 left pending.


HB 445 (M. Gonzalez) Relating to exceptions from the requirement for a person under the direction or control of a local entity or campus police department to assist or cooperate with federal immigration officers.

  • Places of worship are exempted from SB 4, this bill would give the same exemption to schools, institutions of higher education, and health centers.


Robert Hyman, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • Bill would bring Texas law in line with federal guidelines, would provide great benefits.


Rosa Avila, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • People should not be afraid they will be detained when going to school or hospitals.


Maria Isolde, Border Network for Human Rights – For

  • Many immigrants do not feel safe to attend school or hospitals.


Irma Cruz, Broder Network for Human Rights – For

  • People should be able to seek medical help in the emergency room or for pre-natal care when they need it. Students should be able to focus on education.


Dr. Amelia Everett, Doctors for Change – For

  • Hospitals should not be able to turn people away due to their immigration status.
  • SB 4 reduces doctors’ and hospitals’ abilities to treat patients.


Jesus Perales, self – For

  • SB 4 continues to push victims in crime further into the shadows, this bill would help protect victims regardless of immigration status.


Julietta Garibay, United We Dream – For

  • Student was arrested at school and was in detention for almost 3 months. This is a problem and supports the school-to-deportation pipeline.


Faye Collie, American Immigration Lawyers Association – For

  • This bill would allow attendance of school and hospitals without fear.
  • Bill is in line with current ICE policy which excludes enforcement at schools and hospitals.


Andrea Reyes, Deeds Not Words – For

  • SB 4 is hateful and wrong. Campus police discourage students from attending school due to their de facto status as ICE agents.


Claudia Yoli-Ferla, Deeds Not Words – For

  • Immigration policies pushed by Trump has created a bad environment for Latino people.


Dan Chandler, self – Against

  • It is not immigration, it is invasion that is happening in this country.
  • The Devil will destroy the country if there is no border.


Gonzalez closing comments

  • This is a simple bill, will bring state law in line with federal guidelines.


HB 445 left pending.


HB 1035 and HB 3172 laid out together

HB 1035 (Zedler) Relating to protecting freedom of conscience from government discrimination.

  • Rep. Parker lays out bill for Rep. Zedler
  • Parker – ‘Free to Believe Act” ensures that gov will not punish individuals, businesses, etc. for sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality
  • Cites case of Jack Phillips, bill would ensure individuals would not be forced to use skills to violate sincerely held religious beliefs; Phillips prevailed in court against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission
  • Some have concerns that similar situations could happen in Texas, Edie Delmore received threats after refusing to bake a cake
  • Designed to protect homeless shelters, convents, etc.; would protect businesses like Chick-fil-A
  • Raymond – On the Colorado case, did he have any kind of government contracts or was it all private?
    • Parker – It was all private to my understanding


HB 3172 (Krause) Relating to the protection of religious beliefs and moral convictions, including beliefs and convictions regarding marriage.

  • Krause – Also knowns as “First Amendment Defense Act,” essentially says state will not penalize anyone for beliefs on marriage, gov should not take adverse actions based on beliefs on marriage
  • Cites case of firefighter fired due to making a pamphlet for his Sunday school class with a specific definition of marriage


Mary Castle, Texas Values – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Religion has played an important role in America’s history, important to protect religious freedom
  • HB 1035 reinforces significant court precedent regarding selection of ministers, protections against religious organizations surrendering their buildings, protection against government enforcement, etc.
  • HB 3172 also reinforces similar things, protects businesses wit contracts with the government, certain occupational licenses, and private businesses


Tanya Robertson, Republican Party of Texas – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Delegates voted 94% in favor of these issues at state convention
  • In favor of Texans practicing religious beliefs without fear of persecution


Brian Russell, Texas Values – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Bills protect religious freedoms, agenda on the left is trying to use government power to dismantle opposition


Autumn Leva, Strategy for Family Policy Alliance – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Texas has done much to protect religious freedom, tracking many bills nationally that threaten religious values, many measures are proposed promoting LGBT agenda


William Russell, Self – For HB 1035

  • Speaks on San Antonio Airport banning Chick-fil-A from operating in the airport, counter to First Amendment rights of Chick-fil-A


Nicole Hutchens, Texas Values – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Chick-fil-A was singled out because of their faith
  • Religion is great for the economy


Danielle Skidmore, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Bill and definitions targets LGBTQIA community specifically
  • Krause – Appreciate you being here again and look forward to more conversations


Jeff Herbst, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Religion is protected in the US, but it is another matter to force those beliefs on others


Finnigan Jones, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Beliefs should not be used as weapons against the LGBTQ community, legalizing discrimination will make it harder to seek crucial services like health care


Gary Moore, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • In the midst of a spiritual battle against those trying to live by biblical principles, HB 3172 is the chance for Texans to stand together and protect the First Amendment


Jonathan Saenz, Texas Values – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Passing these bills would protect against situations like the San Antonio Airport/Chick-fil-A dispute


David Lil, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Two bills will provide a certain amount of protection for those that do have strongly held religious beliefs; Governments should not be allowed to force individuals to carry a message counter to their beliefs


Ken DeHart, Celebration Church – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Asks the committee to vote for both bills to protect religious freedom


Pat Frye, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies in support of bills, important to hold to religious truth


Angela Smith, Fredericksburg Tea Party – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • US was founded on Christian values; supports both bills so that businesses are protected


Jack Finger, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • LGBTQ individuals already have civil rights, they have been asking for special rights; gender identity and sexual orientation are not in the Constitution


Denise Sybert, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies in support of the bills, measures would protect women’s shelters


Katrin Young, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies in support of both bills, supports Christian businesses


Ruthie Oreck, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Our world is experiencing a movement with open hostility against Judeo-Christian religion, bills are necessary relief


Mimi Barreras, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Should have the freedom to chose to do things or not according to religious beliefs


Aria Young, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Should have freedom to hold to & live by religious decisions


Fran Watson, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Speaking out against discriminatory policies under the guise of other issues; hopes committee would not support measures that would harm individuals because of orientation


Mike Hendrix, Texas LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • This is not a protect Chick-fil-A bill, similar to Mississippi legislation in 2016
  • Includes the “Bathroom Bill 2.0” bad bill for business
  • UK has issued an advisory alert for those traveling to Mississippi, many businesses threatened to pull out of Mississippi


Jessica Shortall, Texas Competes – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Both bills would empower discrimination, HB 1035 also contains a Bathroom Bill provision, which we were recently told was no longer necessary
  • Bills would gut local government nondiscrimination provisions & carry economic risk


Erica Phillips, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • There has been an erosion of moral values of the US, have gone too far and religious freedom is under attack


Lou Weaver, Self – Against HB 1035

  • We are not a Judeo-Christian nation, other religions are often not considered
  • Transgender individuals have no protections, religion should not come into play for health care, employment, etc.


Cynthia Smith, Attorney – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Bills need to be passed, San Antonio City Council enacted employment ordinance, has led to intrusive questions in employment forms


Samuel Joseph, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Concerned about rights taken away, was discriminated against in health care and employment for religion and being transgender


Ash Hall, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies against both bills, shares experience of being discriminated against at Baylor University; counseling services were available, but unsure if the counselor would’ve been receptive if they could decide not to provide services


Johnny Bennet, Self – Against HB 1035

  • Bill is very discriminatory, singles out same sex marriage and transgender individuals


Joe Ball, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Bill only discusses the sincerely held religious belief of some Christians & some people
  • Bill sanctions government and government employees saying that some marriages don’t count


Samantha Smoot, Equality Texas – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Defining religious belief based upon two anti-LGBTQ provisions slanders religion
  • Bills address a problem that does not exist, religious discrimination is already unconstitutional and Texas already has the Religious Freedom Restoration Act


Nathan Davis, Self – For HB 1035

  • Bill is based through Christianity, but represents all religions


Paul Ivanyo, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Christians are the most persecuted, not trying to attack anyone, concerned about possible government action


Adrian Warren, Texas Association of LGBT Issues in Counseling – Against HB 1035

  • Shares experience of difficulties receiving support as an LGBTQ individual
  • Counselors need to be able to work in whatever belief system clients bring in, people would die if counselors were able to reject clients based on belief


Cecilia Wood, Attorney – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies in support of HB 1035 & HB 3172, protects religious individuals


Christie Davis, Self – For HB 3172

  • Marriage is sacred and worth protecting, San Antonio is treating business people like second-class citizens


Gordie Carmona, Gay & Lesbian Alliance of North Texas – Against HB 1035

  • Would have a negative impact on the LGBTQ community & especially LGBT individuals of color and LGBT youth; many have heard negative messages from their government officials, teachers, etc.
  • Would endanger local protections for employment, health care, etc.


Kate Sanchez, Self – Against HB 1035

  • If the bill is passed it could limit access to services for LGBTQ individuals, would like to see elected officials working with young people and not promote discrimination


Billy Savila, Gay and Lesbian Alliance – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • LGBTQ individuals are asking for the same rights as others


Alicia Weigel, InterACT – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Bills promote discrimination based on blatant misinformation
  • Shares experience as an intersex individual, intersex individuals do not fit into the false binary set out in the bills
  • Based on bill language, intersex individuals would not be legally recognized in Texas


Jason Vaughn, Texas Young Republicans – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Ultimately you will have the government discriminating or private individuals discriminating & government action is always more severe


David Najjab, Gearbox Software – Against HB 1035

  • Gearbox Software is located in Frisco, Texas
  • When bills like this come up, press picks it up & it kills recruiting for Gearbox
  • Bill is discriminatory; defines marriage and gender, written as a protection, but it is a freedom to discriminate bill


Steven Atkinson, Equality Texas – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies in support of the bill, HB 1035 would provide an invitation to discriminate against LGBTQ Texans, language is clear that it is written to allow this


Allen Murray, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Has concerns about provisions referring to “nonemergency medical care” & how that is defined
  • Fails to understand how the bill is a protection when it is directed at a marginalized community


Emily Kope, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Bills like this are frightening, treats LGBTQ like second-class citizens


Lexa Jones, Self – Against HB 1035

  • HB 1035 wants to bolster anti-LGBTQ rhetoric through a religious loophole, allows employment discrimination


Erin Reed, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Religious thoughts and beliefs shouldn’t be policed by others


Will Fines, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Bill gives medical professionals the ability to deny transition services without recourse with an exception for medical emergencies; transition services should be considered a medical emergency
  • Research supports the idea of many aspects of transitional care as necessary


Danielle Maldonado, Self – Against HB 1035

  • Bills would allow refusal or services to individuals, make employment decisions, etc., but LGBTQ status does not harm others and does not affect employment
  • Bill is discriminatory; cannot justify infringement of civil liberties with moral conviction


Susan Bryant, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Colorado does have a law that protects individuals when services are offered to the public
  • Religion has been used to justify actions throughout history that were on the wrong side of history, e.g. separation of ethnicities


Jorge Tovar, Jordan River Church – For HB 1035

  • Shares experience with religion; HB 1035 defends freedom of religion


Deborah Garcia, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Bills are not accepting or inclusive, do not demonstrate Christian values


Tamica Sanders, Coming Out, Inc. – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Works with individuals in transitioning them away from LGBTQ lifestyles and towards Christian values; not passing bills would
  • Deshotel – What in the current law prevents anyone who wants to do what you think they need to do?
    • It is harder for us to share the gospel
  • Deshotel – How does this work; If I am struggling and want assistance, what will this bill do? What is blocking you right now?
    • We uphold the biblical standards for marriage and sexuality
  • Deshotel – You can uphold that, but what is keeping individuals from coming to you?
    • Nothing is keeping them from coming to us for help
  • Deshotel – Should be concerned with what you need & offer help to people if they want help; I find this offensive and & I think what Chick-fil-A did was wrong
    • What should I do to the women who come to me?
  • Deshotel – Then help them, they don’t need this bill for you to do that
    • I want to ensure that I would continue to be able to do that
  • Deshotel – What is keeping you from doing this? Take this bill off the table, what is the issue
    • Bill is saying that we couldn’t get governmental grants if we uphold certain types of religious belief
  • Deshotel – And you are going to ensure that they come and see you
    • It may hinder us later if this bill is not put in place to protect us
  • Raymond – Are you for these bills or against these bills?
    • For them, concerned that we will not be protected if they do not pass
  • Raymond – What Rep. Deshotel is asking is if they don’t pass, you don’t think you can continue to do what you are doing?
    • My fear is that there would be a bill proposed later that would prevent us; this bill has an added protection


Brooks Broford, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies in support of the bills, shares his experience of faith improving his life, nonprofits helped & bills would ensure faith-based businesses can continue to donate and support entities


James Kevin Witt, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies in support of the bills, shares his experience of faith improving his life, bills would offer protection for nonprofits


Josh Houston, Texas Impact – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Likely not the author’s intent, the language of the bill would limit the state’s ability to enforce its childcare licenses and standards as it is not limited to marriage; limits any conduct and ability of state to act on licenses


David Walls, Texas Values – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Presents letters of support from pastors across Texas


Ryan Mattings, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies in support of the bills, faith helped upon his return from Afghanistan


David Dorego, Self – For HB 1035 & Hb 3172

  • Testifies in support of the bills


Anne Allen, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies against the bills, LGBTQ individuals do not lead others to sin, bills are about discrimination and bigotry and cherry-pick targets


Rachel Hill, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • There are no government protections for sexual orientations; this bill rewards and protects people who discriminate against others


Michelle Ayelo, Self – Against HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies against the bills, these bills propose discriminatory policies against people in the LGBTQ community


Victor Martinez, Self – For HB 1035 & HB 3172

  • Testifies in support of the bills, believes in the bible, bills are about freedom of belief


CSHB 1035 withdrawn, HB 1035 & HB 3172 left pending


HB 168 (Canales) Relating to a study on the creation of bilingual zones in certain areas of this state.

  • Explained by Rodriguez, Canales was not present.
  • Will create bilingual zones in certain areas.


HB 168 left pending.