The Senate Committee on State Affairs met on April 1 to take up a number of bills. This report covers SB 205 (Perry), SB 903 (Bettencourt), and SB 1254 (Hughes) relating to election integrity, as well as SB 1676 (West), SB 1575 (Alvarado), SB 2119 (Alvarado), and SB 362 (Huffman). All bills taken up by the Committee were voted on at the end of the hearing except those relating to election integrity. Bills relating to election integrity will be voted on by the Committee on Thursday, April 4.

 

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.

 

Pending business

SB 1640

  • CS offers same scope as filed bill. Worked with OAG to clarify language.
  • CSSB 1640 passed, sent to local & uncontested.

SB 21

  • CS offers small changes to mirror house bill.
  • CSSB 21 passed.

CSSB 322

  • New CS changes dates in the bill.
  • CSSB 322 passed.

CSSB 325

  • CSSB 325 passed.

SJR 27

  • SJR 27 passed.

SB 19

  • New CS narrows SB 19 to apply only to residential properties, not commercial.
  • CSSB 19 passed, sent to local & uncontested.

SB 29

  • CSSB 29 passed.

SB 30

  • CSSB 30 passed, sent to local & uncontested.

SB 31

  • SB 31 passed.

 

Current Business

SB 205 (Perry) – Relating to the use of information from the lists of noncitizens excused or disqualified from jury service.

  • Committee substitute offered.
  • Perry – SB 205 allows for the cross-check and use of information from the noncitizen excused from jury duty list and voter rolls. OAG will compare these lists quarterly.
  • Fallon – So if somebody reports to jury duty because they say they are not citizens; we take them off the voter roll?
    • That is not being compared to see if noncitizens are voting. SB 205 allows for that comparable purpose.
  • Fallon – but don’t we get jury duty lists from voter rolls?
    • No, we get that from license information.
  • Fallon – so somebody that is not a citizen and gets their license, we take them off jury list at that time?
    • We can get a resource witness here to answer that.
  • Huffman – We have 15 election bills today, some of them cross, we are going to let authors lay out all of the bills and then call up witnesses.

 

Public testimony

Ed Johnson, self – For

  • County clerks do not have access to the same list as the AG, they should be able to receive that info.
  • Other than the county clerk issue, this is a great bill.

 

James Dickey, Republican Party of Texas – For

  • Bill is supported by the Republican Party platform for fair election procedures.

 

Fatima Menendez, MALDEF Texas – Against

  • On January 24, the Sec. of State testified that it would need 10 new full time prosecutors to handle investigations.
  • AG does not have the capacity to handle these investigations.
  • Zaffirini – Do you have concerns that this would have negative impacts on people with a similar name or address to someone who was eliminated form jury duty due to lack of citizenship?
    • Menendez – Not something I can answer right now but can look into.

 

SB 205 left pending.

 

SB 1254 (Bettencourt) – Relating to verification of the citizenship status of certain registered voters.

  • Bettencourt – SB 1254 deals with cross check process that pertains to voter rolls. Bill provides for SOS cross-checking with motor vehicle records.
  • Committee substitute offered. – CS requires DPS to give information weekly, not quarterly.
  • Birdwell – Does the SOS already collect information on death certificates?
    • That is actually available from the Bureau of Vital Statistics. This just allows SOS to collect that information as quickly as possible.

 

Public testimony

Ed Johnson, self – For

  • Makes sense for the SoS to validate the voter rolls.
  • The SoS already has access to voter citizenship info, this provides guidelines for the SoS to follow.

 

Chris Davis, Texas Association of Elections Administrators – Against

  • Motor vehicle records can be up to 6 years old.
  • Bill removes all direction of investigation that can be done at the local level.
  • Would like to see a list of individuals who presented themselves as non-citizens after the date of their voter registration.

 

Deborah Chen, OCA Greater Houston – Against

  • Cannot answer questions due to involvement in a lawsuit on this issue, but organization is against the bill.

 

Chuck DeVore, Texas Public Policy Foundation – For

  • Common sense to prevent individuals who are not eligible from participating in the election process.
  • This measure would allow things to be more interconnected and proactive and would improve the integrity of voter rolls.

 

Fatima Menendez, MALDEF – Against

  • This bill would codify the process which was recently used for a voter purge of naturalized citizens.
  • Drivers’ licenses are valid for up to 6 years and there is no requirement to update DPS about naturalization status.
  • Voter purge violated the 14th amendment and the Voting Rights Act.

 

SB 1254 left pending.

 

SB 903 (Hughes) – Relating to the integrity of elections in this state; imposing a civil penalty; increasing a criminal penalty.

  • Hughes – Bill would require a judge to inform the defendant of the full impact of the conviction on the defendant’s voting rights in this state. Bill requires voter registrar to notify OAG, SOS, and local DA with information of those who are ineligible to vote. Bill requires DPS to enter into an agreement with Social Security Administration to verify the information of voter registration records containing a social security number. Bill requires registrar to obtain US citizenship proof from those disqualified from jury service or otherwise determined ineligible to vote because of citizenship status. Bill requires early voting clerk to notify OAG of any ballot rejected for certain reasons.
  • Nelson – I’m glad you are getting this all straightened out. When a person takes a citizenship test, does the federal government send something to each state to let us know that these people are now citizens?
    • There is a federal agency responsible for communicating this information to us. However, Texas is not receiving that information at this moment.

 

Public testimony

Chris Davis, Texas Association of Elections Administrators – Against

  • List included people who never should have been included on the list.
  • List also included people who had not interacted with DPS for years and had their path to citizenship established.
  • Notice required registrars to send out notices to people without adequate time to vet the list.
  • Hughes – Broad speaking would you agree that an ongoing checking of these matters would be better than waiting a couple years and trying to catch up?
    • Davis – Yes broadly I agree with that. If there is any red flag that pops up saying they are not a citizen we can investigate.
    • Hughes – And going in small bites would be better than doing it all at once?
    • Davis – Yes, but some of those small bites have spoiled food in them.
  • Huffman – Seems like we all have the same goal here, what is your solution?
    • Davis – We would recommend investigation into cases where someone registered as a voter and then after that registered as a non-citizen with DPS.
    • Huffman – I think the concern continues to be language when you say “most likely were” on a path to citizenship. We want to get as close as we can to an accurate list.
  • Hughes – Important to understand the differences in processes between drivers license verification and voter registration. The drivers license has independent verification and voter registration does not, so it is not an apples-to-apples verification correct?
    • Davis – Yes, but there are also differences between naturalized citizens and people who were born as citizens.

 

Glen Maxey, Texas Democratic Party – On

  • Bill contains language about strong and weak matches, the definition is very clear among people who work with data science. Would like to include that definition in the statute so we are not quibbling about a person making those determinations.
  • Nelson – When you put something like that into statute things tend to change rapidly, is there a way to write the language to deal with that?
    • Maxie – We could put in a minimum number of data points that must be reached.

 

SB 903 left pending.

 

SB 1676 (West)Relating to suits affecting the parent-child relationship and the enforcement of child support.

  • West – Comments about uncollectable debt and child support payments from incarcerated non-custodial parents.
    • Creighton – So it is better to lower and modify the support obligations of the non-custodial parent? Can you explain that in “straight talk”?
    • West – In straight talk, some people who are incarcerated have no money, so they rack up child support payments that they are not able to pay. The court can look at individuals with or without resources and force the ones with resources to pay while they are incarcerated.
    • Creighton – Important to say that the judiciary will have authority over this issue. Custodial parents will not be left without child support due to mistakes made by the non-custodial parent.

 

Public testimony

Joel Rogers, Child Support Division of the Attorney General’s Office – Resource witness

  • Creighton – Why is the judicial discretion not there already to make these determinations?
    • Rogers – This does not change child support guidelines at all, we are complying with a new federal regulation for which we will have to create a new administrative process.
    • Creighton – It would be very unfair for someone to be in jail for a year or two, and the custodial parent receives a modification downward. Since there are no changes in the guidelines, this is just giving flexibility to the AG’s office.
    • Rogers – Correct, the incarcerated might have resources such as property that can be used. It might have to be modified downward based on net assets.
    • Creighton – Is that modification downward re-adjusted after they are released?
    • Rogers – Yes, we typically give it a couple months to allow them time to find employment. Oftentimes if they have a lot of debt it makes it difficult to get a job and the AG can withhold up to 50% of the check, so they do not work in the formal economy and instead work under the table.
    • Creighton – When you say debt it is really arrears, I am worried that we are removing benefits from custodial parents and children who depend on that child support.
    • Rogers – Under existing law that is already occurring.
    • Creighton – Understand that, just want to make sure everyone is clear on the issue.

 

SB 1676 passed 6-0, certified local and uncontested.  

 

SB 1575 (Alvarado) (Committee Sub) – Relating to governmental immunity of a municipality for a cause of action arising from a disaster recovery contract.

  • Alvarado – Only change made with CS is that the CS is a lege council version.
  • There is no direct or financial benefit to the local government from disaster relief funds. Goods and services do not go to the municipalities, they go to the homeowner.
  • This bill makes clear that immunity is not waived when a community enters into a contract to provide goods and services for a private entity.
  • Nelson – Does the immunity apply only during a declared disaster or does it continue to rehabilitation phase?
    • Alvarado – Once the Governor declares a disaster I am not sure if there is an expiration.

 

Public testimony

Donald Glywasky, City of Galveston – For

  • Immunity is currently waived when goods and services are delivered. These do not benefit the municipalities, they only benefit homeowners.

 

Lowell Denton, Denton, Navarro, Rocha, Bernal, and Zech – For

  • Current law waived the immunity of the City of El Paso when they did not benefit, only homeowners benefited.
  • This bill would fix that issue.

 

SB 1575 passed 6-0, certified local and uncontested.  

 

SB 2119 (Alvarado) (Committee Sub)– Relating to the transfer of the regulation of motor fuel metering and motor fuel quality from the Texas Department of Agriculture to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.

  • Alvarado – Transfers the authority for the regulation of gas pumps form a political agency to a true regulatory agency.
  • Liquid weights and measures and fuel quality program does not align with TDA’s mission to make Texas the nation’s leader in agriculture.
  • Pumps are no longer inspected by TDA, they are inspected by licensed service companies.
  • Purpose of HB 2174 from last session was to reduce fees, but some stations have seen fees increased by over 500%. This does not align with the business-friendly climate in Texas.
  • Nelson – Looking at the fiscal note, in the transfer from TDA to TDLR there would be no impact, correct?
    • Alvarado – Correct. There is a year-long phase-in that would allow for a smooth transition.
  • Nelson – Fees will bring in approximately $8m and the cost is around $3m, so the program pays for itself.
    • Alvarado – TDLR can speak to that as well, they have people who are ready to handle the transfer and will be given the year-long phase-in.

Public testimony

Sid Miller, self – Against

  • Bill will slash consumer protections at the pump.
  • Fuel program is a “shining star” of efficiency as a government program since Miller took over. Before Miller became Ag Commissioner it was an inefficient program, Miller reorganized the program to make it more efficient.
  • This will be more duplication than efficiency, Ag inspectors will still be at convenient stores for inspections of barcode scanners, eggs, propane bottles, etc.
  • Alvarado – You said consumer protections will not exist under the bill. But the same procedures currently followed will still remain in place?
    • Miller – There is nothing in this bill that mentions skimmers, and if we can’t check the pumps we can’t check for skimmers.
    • Alvarado – I disagree, everything would stay intact and TDLR is accustomed to dealing with complaint-driven issues.

 

Lance Davis, QuickChek – For

  • TDA has an elected rather than an appointed official, which is a problem.
  • Do not plan for fees, regulations, and fines to be increased, those increases have to be passed on to customers.

 

Paul Hardin, Texas Food and Fuel Association – For

  • TDA has “butted heads” with the Food and Fuel Assoc over the years.
  • TDA wants to fight so hard to regulate a certain industry because it is run by an elected official.
  • Meters almost always fail in favor of customers when they do fail.
  • Alvarado – Asks any of the panel about increases in the fees. There was one station in my district which saw over $200,000 increase in fees overnight.
    • Hardin – They are a wholesale distributor, they are a high-volume pump company that deals mainly with commercial accounts. They saw an increase of over 500% which was around $225,000 for them.
    • Alvarado – Aside from this one can you talk about any other increases people in the industry have witnessed?
    • Hardin – Yes, Mr. Davis had on average for his stores a 66% increase. Has 46 stores, if each increases by another $14-$18 it adds up quickly.
    • Alvarado – Ask the Commissioner why these increases have been so drastic?
    • Miller – When I took over TDA the agency was not meeting any performance measures, we are now meeting or exceeding all of those. Only budget tool we had left was revenue from permits, so we had to increase fees to pay for services.
    • Miller – But with this bill the fees will double again. There is no fiscal note because it is all cost recovery, so when TDLR says it will cost over $8m to run the program and $3m for start-up costs, and they missed that the cost to switch out stickers at the pump is $800,000. So total cost is over $12m. TDA runs the program at $5.9m, so the food and fuel people are going to be hit again.
    • Alvarado – Miller has made some statements that the resource witness from TDLR can respond to, I don’t agree with Miller on the numbers he quoted.

Brian Francis – Texas Dept. of Licensing and Regulation – On

  • Alvarado – Respond to what Miller said about the fees?
    • Francis – the fees will not double, our history over the last 10 years has ben to lower fees, we do not and will not raise fees.
  • Lucio – Question to Mr. Miller, your agency goes through Sunset correct?
    • Miller – Yes that is correct, and we will go through Sunset once this session ends. Sunset is the proper place to deal with this.
    • Lucio – Have these issues ever come up before?
    • Miller – No they have not.
  • Alvarado – Will consumer protections be taken away?
    • Francis – Bill still includes the complaint resolution process. TDLR has a robust enforcement division.
    • Alvarado – Would you say that you are a regulatory agency?
    • Francis – Yes that is what we are structures to do.
    • Alvarado – Is the agency used to dealing with complaint driven issues?
    • Alvarado – Yes, we have an elevator complaint program and the boiler safety program.
  • Lucio – You feel that TDLR can operate this program more efficiently instead of more expensively? You will not have to expand on your operation to perform the duties requires?
    • Francis – Believe we can, at TDLR we have a history of lowering the cost for programs that have been transferred to us.

 

SB 2119 passed 6-1.  

 

SB 362 (Huffman) (Committee Sub) – Relating to court-ordered mental health services.

  • Huffman – Will clarify standards for outpatient and inpatient court-ordered mental health services.
  • Will establish yearly judicial training on mental health issues.
  • Nelson – Original bill could be done with existing resources, is that the same in the CS?
    • Huffman – The fiscal note will have a determinant number. It has been accounted for in workgroup recommendations.
  • This will clear up space in beds and should divert some people who have committed class B misdemeanors.

 

Public testimony

Aaryce Hayes, Disability Rights Texas – On

  • Appreciate intent of the bill, have some concerns with certain language.
  • Discharge planning and insuring of adequate medication need to be addressed.

 

David Slayton, Texas Judicial Council – For

  • Bill was a recommendation of the Texas Judicial Council.

 

SB 362 passed 7-0.  

 

Votes taken at the end of hearing on new business

  • SB 658 (Zaffirini) – Passed 6-0
    • Certified local and uncontested.
  • CSSB 1575 (Alvarado) – Passed 6-0
    • Certified local and uncontested.
  • CSSB 1675 (West) – Passed 6-0
    • Certified local and uncontested.
  • CSSB 1676 (West) – Passed 6-0
    • Certified local and uncontested.
  • CSSB 2119 (Alvarado) – Passed 6-1
  • CSSB 362 (Huffman) – Passed 7-0
  • CSSB 1728 (Huffman) – Passed 5-2
  • CSSB 1887 (Huffman) – Passed 7-0
    • Certified local and uncontested.