(Continued)

(Wednesday, February 19, 2025)

The Senate met at 11:06 a.m. and was called to order by the President.

Pastor Carl Toti, Trinity Church, Lubbock, offered the invocation as follows:

Almighty God, creator of heaven and Earth, sovereign over all nations, and the author of wisdom, we come before You today in humility, seeking Your divine guidance and blessing upon this legislative body. Lord, we lift up these leaders whom You have placed in positions of authority. May they walk in integrity, govern with wisdom, and legislate with justice and righteousness. Grant them hearts of humility and discernment, that they may seek not their own interests, but the welfare of the people they serve. Father, as the City of Lubbock is highlighted today, we thank You for the values of faith, family, and freedom that have long shaped this community and our entire state. As Lubbock stands as a testament to our shared values, we pray for all communities across our great state. May each city across Texas continue to be a beacon of hope, where truth is upheld, life is cherished, and Your name is honored. Holy spirit, we invite You into this chamber today. May Your presence bring unity where there is division, clarity where there is confusion, and strength where there is weariness. Let these men and women lead with courage and conviction, defending what is good and standing firm against what is evil. We pray that Texas will remain a shining city on a hill, a land of opportunity and blessing, where faith and freedom flourish. May this state continue to be a stronghold for righteousness and a refuge for those seeking justice and prosperity. And now, O Lord, we entrust this session and the work of these leaders into Your hands. May all they do be for Your glory and the good of the people they serve. We ask these things with humble hearts and sincere purpose. We ask this in the mighty and matchless name of our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ. God bless America, and may God continue to bless the great State of Texas. Amen.

HOUSE CHAMBER

Austin, Texas

Wednesday, February 19, 2025 - 1

The Honorable President of the Senate

Senate Chamber

Austin, Texas

Mr. President:

I am directed by the house to inform the senate that the house has taken the following action:

THE HOUSE HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING MEASURES:

Granting the legislature permission to adjourn for more than three days during the period beginning Thursday, February 20, 2025, and ending Tuesday, February 25, 2025.

Respectfully,

/s/Stephen Brown,

Chief Clerk

House of Representatives

The President announced the signing of the following enrolled resolution in the presence of the Senate:  HCR 5.

Senator Perry offered the following resolution:

SR 92, Recognizing February 19, 2025, as Lubbock Day.

The resolution was read and was adopted without objection.

Senator Perry was recognized and introduced to the Senate a Lubbock Day delegation including Mayor Mark McBrayer; Lubbock County Judge Curtis Parrish; and Lubbock Chamber of Commerce representatives Kay McDowell, Robert Wood, and Chris Chambers.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator J. Hinojosa offered the following resolution:

SR 110, Recognizing February 19, 2025, as Rio Grande Valley Day.

J. HINOJOSA

A. HINOJOSA

The resolution was read and was adopted without objection.

Senator J. Hinojosa, joined by Senators Zaffirini and A. Hinojosa, was recognized and introduced to the Senate a Rio Grande Valley Day delegation including Raquel Limas, Con Cariño Primary Home Care; Edinburg Mayor Ramiro Garza Jr.; RGV Partnership President and CEO Daniel Silva; NextDecade Head of Community Relations Andrea Figueroa Benton; and Texas International Produce Association President and CEO Dante L. Galeazzi.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator Schwertner was recognized and presented Dr. Jacqueline Champlain of Georgetown, Texas, as the Physician of the Day.

The Senate welcomed Dr. Champlain and thanked her for her participation in the Physician of the Day program sponsored by the Texas Academy of Family Physicians.

Senator Blanco offered the following resolution:

SR 113, In memory of Karl McElhaney.

The resolution was read.

On motion of Senator Blanco, the resolution was adopted by a rising vote of the Senate.

In honor of the memory of Karl McElhaney, the text of SR 113 will be printed in the Senate Journal upon adjournment of this legislative day.

At the request of Senator Blanco, the Senate observed a moment of silence in honor of the life of Karl McElhaney.

Senator Blanco offered the following resolution:

SR 62, Recognizing February 18 and 19, 2025, as El Paso Days.

The resolution was read and was adopted without objection.

Senator Blanco was recognized and introduced to the Senate an El Paso County Days delegation including El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego, County Commissioner David Stout, City of El Paso Mayor Pro Tempore Alejandra Chávez, and El Paso Chamber of Commerce representatives President and CEO Ricardo Mora and Board Chair Elizabeth O'Hara.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator West, on behalf of Senator Miles, offered the following resolution:

SR 117, Congratulating State Representative Harold V. Dutton, Jr., on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

The resolution was read and was adopted without objection.

Senator West, joined by Senators King and Bettencourt, was recognized and introduced to the Senate the Honorable Harold V. Dutton Jr.

The Senate welcomed its guest.

Senator King was recognized and introduced to the Senate a Brown County delegation including Robert Porter, Brownwood City Manager Emily Crawford, Brownwood City Councilmember Draco Miller, Brownwood Economic Development Department Executive Director Ray Tipton, and Brownwood Deputy City Manager Marshal McIntosh.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator Flores was recognized and introduced to the Senate Brigadier General Steve Salazar from the National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg, accompanied by his wife, Anna.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator Cook was recognized and introduced to the Senate a Texas Oncology Day delegation including Dr. Andy Chen, Carrie Cartwright, Jill Davis, Dr. Guillermo Lazo, Ed Clark, Dr. Susan Escudier, Catherine Swick, and Lindsay Greenleaf.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator Menéndez offered the following resolution:

SR 114, Recognizing February 19, 2025, as Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers Day at the State Capitol.

The resolution was read and was adopted without objection.

Senator Menéndez was recognized and introduced to the Senate a Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers Day delegation.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator Johnson offered the following resolution:

SR 95, Recognizing the Richardson Chamber of Commerce Austin Legislative Fly-In on February 18 and 19, 2025, at the State Capitol.

JOHNSON

HALL

The resolution was read and was adopted without objection.

Senator Johnson, joined by Senators Parker and Hall, was recognized and introduced to the Senate a City of Richardson delegation including Mayor Bob Dubey, City Manager Don Magner, Chief of Police Gary Tittle, and Richardson Chamber of Commerce representatives President and CEO Julie Snyder and Board and Governance Manager Johnette Alter.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator J. Hinojosa offered the following resolution:

SR 111, Recognizing February 19, 2025, as Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi Day.

J. HINOJOSA

A. HINOJOSA

The resolution was read and was adopted without objection.

Senator J. Hinojosa, joined by Senator A. Hinojosa, was recognized and introduced to the Senate a Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi Day delegation including President and CEO Dr. Kelly M. Miller and Student Government President Andrea Hinojosa.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator Bettencourt offered the following resolution:

SR 108, Recognizing February 19, 2025, as Texas Building Owners and Managers Association Advocacy Day at the State Capitol.

The resolution was read and was adopted without objection.

Senator Bettencourt was recognized and introduced to the Senate a Texas Building Owners and Managers Association Advocacy Day delegation.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

Senator Hughes offered the following resolution:

SR 120, Recognizing February 19, 2025, as Northeast Texas Regional Alliance Day at the State Capitol.

The resolution was read and was adopted without objection.

Senator Hughes was recognized and introduced to the Senate a Northeast Texas Regional Alliance Day delegation.

The Senate welcomed its guests.

The following resolution was offered:

SR 99 by Schwertner, Recognizing February 19, 2025, as Texas Chapter of the American College of Physicians Advocacy Leadership Day at the State Capitol.

The resolution was read and was adopted by a viva voce vote.

Senator Hughes submitted a Motion In Writing requesting that SB 314 be withdrawn from the Committee on Education K-16 and rereferred to the Committee on Health and Human Services.

The Motion In Writing was read and prevailed without objection.

The Presiding Officer announced that the introduction of bills and resolutions on first reading would be postponed until the end of today's calendar.

There was no objection.

The Presiding Officer, at 12:25 p.m. announced the conclusion of morning call.

Senator Huffman moved to suspend the regular order of business to take up for consideration CSSJR 1 at this time on its second reading (submitted by Governor as an emergency matter):

CSSJR 1, Proposing a constitutional amendment requiring the denial of bail for an illegal alien charged with an offense punishable as a felony.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Eckhardt asked to be recorded as voting "Nay" on suspension of the regular order of business.

The resolution was read second time and was passed to engrossment by a viva voce vote.

All Members are deemed to have voted "Yea" on the passage to engrossment except as follows:

Nays:  Cook, Eckhardt.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

Senator Huffman moved that Senate Rule 7.18 and the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended and that CSSJR 1 be placed on its third reading and final passage.

The motion prevailed by the following vote:  Yeas 29, Nays 1.

Nays:  Eckhardt.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

The resolution was read third time and was passed by the following vote:  Yeas 28, Nays 2.

Yeas:  Alvarado, Bettencourt, Birdwell, Blanco, Campbell, Creighton, Flores, Gutierrez, Hagenbuch, Hall, Hancock, A. Hinojosa, J. Hinojosa, Huffman, Hughes, Johnson, King, Kolkhorst, Menéndez, Middleton, Nichols, Parker, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner, Sparks, West, Zaffirini.

Nays:  Cook, Eckhardt.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

Senators Alvarado, Gutierrez, and Menéndez submitted the following statement regarding SJR 1:

Our deepest condolences to Jocelyn Nungaray's family and others who have lost loved ones to abhorrent violence. No family should have to go through what Jocelyn's family and others have endured. SJR 1, which seeks to address serious public safety issues stemming from judges who are not following current state laws on bail, is a first step to ensuring dangerous offenders are not released. 

We support the intent of SJR 1 to prioritize the safety of all Texans. However, as the legislation moves through the Texas House and to the conference committee, we hope that the final language of this joint resolution will address some concerns that have been raised. 

Similar to SJR 5 and previous iterations, there should be mechanisms to preserve due process including "least restrictive means" language. As written, SJR 1 is likely to be found unconstitutional, specifically in violation of the 14th and 5th Amendments. Further, like SJR 5, the legislation should be narrowed to violent felony offenses to ensure that our limited resources are directed at detaining those who present a danger to the public – the stated goal of SJR 1. As drafted, the current language applies to ALL state jail, first, second and third degree felony offenses, making it more difficult for judges to prioritize cases involving violent offenses. 

In addition, the definition of "illegal alien" should be refined to ensure that those who may have initially entered the country without authorization but have since gone through the appropriate legal processes to gain lawful status are not impacted by this legislation. As drafted, the current language is broadly written, does not align with existing federal definitions and could apply to current U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents or DACA recipients – those who we do not believe are the intended targets of this legislation.

Finally, we need clarification on how SJR 1 will work in practice with recently passed federal law (the Laken Riley Act), which requires the detention of any undocumented immigrant who is charged, arrested, convicted or admits to committing certain criminal acts. We must make sure that we are not shifting the cost of detention from the federal government to local taxpayers since counties are responsible for housing defendants pre-trial. Potential solutions might be to require prosecutors to first inform federal authorities and ask them to detain the individuals. If that is not feasible, then the state should provide counties the resources they will need to accommodate increased jail population, especially as many urban and border counties are at or over capacity and spending millions to find beds in other counties or states. Whatever the path, we should not pass the costs of this legislation onto Texas homeowners who are already struggling with today's cost of living.

We look forward to continuing to work on this important legislation to improve public safety while also adhering to our constitutional principles, protecting the civil liberties of all and meeting our fiscal obligations to taxpayers.

ALVARADO

GUTIERREZ

MENÉNDEZ

Senator Cook submitted the following statement regarding SJR 1:

I am thankful for the author's dedication to supporting victims and victims' families. I honor their bravery, and acknowledge the right of every family to pursue justice in the face of their grief. Unspeakable tragedies have happened to Texas families, and SJR 1 strives to protect them, but the strategies employed in the bill could have an opposite effect. After careful reflection, I vote no.

SJR 1 trades Texans' civil rights for the illusion of security and doubles down on failed approaches to public safety.

The scope and ambiguous wording of SJR 1 could deny bail not just to undocumented immigrants, but to a much broader group. This would affect people with lawful presence whose status may be in flux or not easily determined by local magistrates.

In the emergency room, I see firsthand how fear of medical reporting deters people from seeking essential care, making us all less healthy. Similarly, when immigrant communities fear that any interaction with law enforcement may result in their indefinite detention, they become less likely to report crimes or assist law enforcement with investigations, making us all less safe.  

The Texas Constitution guarantees the right to bail except in capital cases. This fundamental protection exists because pretrial detention is coercive. With no ability to post bond, more immigrants will feel immense pressure to accept disadvantageous plea deals, even if they are innocent, wrongly charged, or have strong legal defenses. There is also little evidence that immigration status itself predicts risk of violent crime. The vast majority of immigrants, including those without legal status, never commit felonies.

SJR 1 blurs important jurisdictional lines, making state judges and facilities responsible for detaining individuals on federal immigration grounds. In addition to legal concerns around equal protection and due process, this would represent a massive unfunded mandate, shifting costs from the federal government to already overcrowded state and county jails. The potential unintended consequences of SJR 1 could rob our state agencies of the resources and stability they need to deliver justice. 

I am again grateful to my colleagues for their fierce advocacy in search of a goal that I share: protecting Texas families from violent crime. I fear the fallout of SJR 1 could lead the Texas justice system down a path that is no longer a response to crime. This bill comes to the Senate floor amid a coordinated assault on civil rights and due process, and a wave of state action designed to criminalize immigrant communities. This erosion of constitutional protections includes executive orders requiring hospitals to ask up front and report patients' immigration status, directives expanding detention facilities, deploying state agencies for immigration enforcement, authorizing ICE raids in schools, and now this denial of bail rights.

A just, discerning bail system should assess dangerousness and flight risk case by case, based on someone's individual circumstances and actions, not impose categorical detention based on immigration status alone.

COOK

Senator Eckhardt submitted the following statement regarding SJR 1:

First, I am horrified by the rape and murder of Jocelyn Nungaray, as I am every time a man murders a woman, which happens with greater frequency in Texas than in any other state. All murderers, irrespective of where they were born, must be put to justice. Immigrants in the United States have had lower incarceration rates than the native-born population since at least 1870 (when such data were first recorded). U.S.-born citizens are ten times more likely than immigrants to be incarcerated for committing weapons-related offenses, five times more likely for violent offenses, more than twice as likely for property crimes, and nearly twice as likely for drug offenses.

Violent offenders of all nationalities must be vigorously prosecuted under the U.S. and Texas constitutions. But SJR 1 as written is unconstitutional under at least the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It sets up a separate procedure based on nationality. It sets a burden of proof to deny bond that is based on potential guilt rather than flight risk and continuing threat to public safety. The standard set in this bill to deny bond - “probable cause” - is the same as the standard for mere arrest. The class of people it applies to - immigrants without authorization - is written so broadly that it includes those who have since obtained authorization or become citizens such as asylum seekers and those on student or work visas who are pursuing citizenship through the green card lottery. It also includes those who may have been victims of crimes themselves, such as trafficking or other coercion. Further, the state has no compelling interest for this extraordinary bill since the federal government passed the Laken Riley Act.

The Laken Riley Act expands on the criminal history considered significant by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) for the purposes of federal detention and deportation. And the Laken Riley Act gives states the right to sue for damages if CBP errs. The suspects in Jocelyn's case were apprehended and released by CBP months before Jocelyn's murder. Under the Laken Riley Act, if the two men had criminal histories of even shoplifting known to CBP at the time, CBP would have detained them.

A suspect in state custody, of whatever nationality, is presumed innocent but may have their liberty restricted to the extent they pose a continuing threat to public safety or a risk of absconding from the administration of justice. This bill requires county jails to hold every undocumented immigrant accused of any felony in county jail until disposition. Currently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must collect an undocumented immigrant on whom it has placed a hold within 2 days or reimburse the county for the extended detention. If this bill becomes law, federal authorities will be released from the obligation to act swiftly and will be invited, without reimbursement, to use county jails as federal immigrant detention centers. This will push cost and liability onto local governments. Local taxpayers will foot the bill to hold low-risk immigrants rather than holding the high-risk defendants (of any nationality) which county jails are meant to detain.

Violent crime is violent crime, and should be treated with the same justice no matter where the perpetrator was born. If this unconstitutional bill becomes law, Texas will have created a separate process premised on the assumption that all undocumented immigrants who are arrested are guilty, will abscond, and are a continuing safety threat. Some are. Judges should continue making that determination on a case-by-case basis. And federal immigration authorities should continue prioritizing the detention and expeditious deportation of dangerous convicted felons.

ECKHARDT

Senator Huffman moved that the regular order of business be suspended and that CSSB 9 be taken up for consideration at this time (submitted by Governor as an emergency matter):

CSSB 9, Relating to the release of defendants on bail, the duties of a magistrate in certain criminal proceedings, the regulation of charitable bail organizations, and the notice provided by peace officers to victims of family violence, stalking, harassment, or terroristic threat.

The motion prevailed by the following vote:  Yeas 28, Nays 2.

Yeas:  Alvarado, Bettencourt, Birdwell, Blanco, Campbell, Creighton, Flores, Gutierrez, Hagenbuch, Hall, Hancock, A. Hinojosa, J. Hinojosa, Huffman, Hughes, Johnson, King, Kolkhorst, Menéndez, Middleton, Nichols, Parker, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner, Sparks, West, Zaffirini.

Nays:  Cook, Eckhardt.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

The bill was read second time.

Senator Huffman offered the following amendment to the bill:

Amend CSSB 9 (senate committee printing) as follows:

(1)  In SECTION 2 of the bill, strike amended Article 17.021(b)(5)(B), Code of Criminal Procedure (page 1, lines 50-52), and substitute the following:

(B)  any pending charges, including whether the defendant is currently released on bail or participating in a pretrial intervention program and any conditions of that release or participation;

(2)  Add the following appropriately numbered SECTIONS to the bill and renumber the SECTIONS of the bill accordingly:

SECTION ____.  Chapter 16, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Article 16.24 to read as follows:

SECTION ____.  Article 42.01, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Section 17 to read as follows:

SECTION ____.  Chapter 42, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Article 42.0195 to read as follows:

The amendment to CSSB 9 was read and was adopted by a viva voce vote.

All Members are deemed to have voted "Yea" on the adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1 except as follows:

Absent-excused:  Miles.

Senator Huffman offered the following amendment to the bill:

Amend CSSB 9 (Senate committee report) as follows:

Add the following appropriately numbered SECTION and renumber subsequent SECTIONS appropriately:

SECTION ( ).  Amend Section 3, Article 17.09, Code of Criminal Procedure, to read as follows:

Sec. 3.  Provided that whenever, during the course of the action, and regardless of whether the defendant has been previously released under Article 17.151, the judge or magistrate in whose court such action is pending finds that the bond is defective, excessive or insufficient in amount, or that the sureties, if any, are not acceptable, or for any other good and sufficient cause, such judge or magistrate may, either in term-time or in vacation, order the accused to be rearrested, and require the accused to give another bond in such amount as the judge or magistrate may deem proper. When such bond is so given and approved, the defendant shall be released from custody.

The amendment to CSSB 9 was read and was adopted by a viva voce vote.

All Members are deemed to have voted "Yea" on the adoption of Floor Amendment No. 2 except as follows:

Absent-excused:  Miles.

CSSB 9 as amended was passed to engrossment by the following vote:  Yeas 28, Nays 2.

Yeas:  Alvarado, Bettencourt, Birdwell, Blanco, Campbell, Creighton, Flores, Gutierrez, Hagenbuch, Hall, Hancock, A. Hinojosa, J. Hinojosa, Huffman, Hughes, Johnson, King, Kolkhorst, Menéndez, Middleton, Nichols, Parker, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner, Sparks, West, Zaffirini.

Nays:  Cook, Eckhardt.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

Senator Huffman moved that Senate Rule 7.18 and the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended and that CSSB 9 be placed on its third reading and final passage.

The motion prevailed by the following vote:  Yeas 28, Nays 2.

Yeas:  Alvarado, Bettencourt, Birdwell, Blanco, Campbell, Creighton, Flores, Gutierrez, Hagenbuch, Hall, Hancock, A. Hinojosa, J. Hinojosa, Huffman, Hughes, Johnson, King, Kolkhorst, Menéndez, Middleton, Nichols, Parker, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner, Sparks, West, Zaffirini.

Nays:  Cook, Eckhardt.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

The bill was read third time and was passed by the following vote:  Yeas 28, Nays 2. (Same as previous roll call)

Senator Cook submitted the following statement regarding SB 9:

Relating to the release of defendants on bail, the duties of a magistrate in certain criminal proceedings. . .

Public safety requires that our communities have robust tools to protect victims and prevent violent crime. In every shift as an emergency room nurse, I am confronted with the complexity and the threat of violence. I understand the critical importance of timely intervention and the devastating consequences when we get it wrong. I support the author and the Office of Court Administration's (OCA) efforts to improve information sharing through the Public Safety Report System. In principle, I understand and unequivocally support what SB 9 seeks to accomplish: protect constituents and improve the criminal legal system. Because I believe the unintended consequences of SB 9 will destabilize local justice systems, I respectfully vote no.  

The mechanisms of SB 9 replace evidence-based bail-setting with broad prosecutorial power and procedural traps. SB 9's core provisions delay justice, disrupt treatment, and fail to deliver safety. 

Under the proposed changes of SB 9, a prosecutor's disagreement with a bail amount triggers automatic detention during appeal. In Harris County where prosecutors routinely object to bail amounts, the strategy's high cost was paid with dozens of lives and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. There, at least 31 people have died in jail since 2023 and overcrowding costs $50 million per year. OCA data shows no statistical difference in appearance rates or new criminal activity between jurisdictions with aggressive prosecution appeals and those without.  

Consider what this will mean for rural counties where transportation between jurisdictions for bond hearings already takes weeks, and 42% of dismissals come after defendants spend over 30 days in jail. Local sheriff departments are saddled with the unfunded mandate of their extended detention and the burdensome drain on staff and resources to transport defendants across the state to originating jurisdictions.

When my patients need emergency care, every moment of delay increases risk. The same principle applies here. Under SB 9's framework, the time between arrest and meaningful bond consideration becomes a dangerous gap where constitutional rights fade and crises escalate. 

I'm troubled by the uncomfortable truth that 30% of felony charges in Texas go on to be dismissed, according to OCA data. Texas Health and Human Services reports 70% of defendants lose healthcare coverage during detention. Each day in jail increases the likelihood of an ER visit upon release by 4%. These are preventable health crises that strain our emergency systems and overwhelm our hospitals. Under SB 9's expanded detention provisions, thousands of my constituents will lose jobs, housing, and medical care awaiting dismissal of charges that never should have been filed. Every small failure compounds, increases rates of violent events, and puts more innocent Texans at risk.

Changes to probable cause determinations under Article 15.17 will ensnare my district's most vulnerable constituents. Consider an indigent defendant with schizophrenia arrested on Friday evening. Under current law, they might qualify for a Mental Health Personal Bond under Article 17.032. SB 9's new restrictions supersede this pathway, keeping them jailed through the weekend, likely without medication. This drastically increases their volatility: the Joint Committee on Mental Health reports that, while detained, 78% of defendants with mental illness receive new charges for behavior that is directly related to their untreated conditions. These new charges are often for terroristic threats while the defendant is in escalating crisis. It is worthwhile to note that some elements of these offenses are less heinous than the titles of the crimes would imply. One of my patients in crisis yelling on the street outside of the hospital could easily be accused of terroristic threats.

The proposed Article 17.027(a-2) bars magistrates from releasing defendants with mental illness who have prior felony convictions, regardless of their current charges or treatment needs.  

Let's look at a routine arrest journey in Texas involving Sarah, a 44-year-old veteran with PTSD. Sarah misses several VA appointments due to transportation issues and is arrested in mental health crisis at a grocery store. Under current law, Article 17.032 allows the magistrate to craft a personal bond with treatment conditions. Under SB 9, her path looks different.  

The initial charge triggers expanded detention provisions based on a prior record. A commercial bondsman posts her $5,000 bond, charging her a non-refundable $500 fee financed at 15% interest. Her conditions include weekly check-ins at the bonding office 30 miles away, monthly supervision fees, and an ankle monitor rental from a company owned by the same bail insurance conglomerate charging her interest on bond.  

Two weeks later, she misses her check-in due to a VA appointment conflict and later falls behind on her ankle monitor fee. The prosecutor files for revocation under Article 44.01(a)(7)'s new provisions. She's detained again, this time with a $10,000 bond. Another fee, more interest, additional conditions. Each step generates revenue for the bail industry while making her next failure more likely. It's a system working to create the very dangers it claims to prevent. This revolving door doesn't just harm Sarah, it harms every person around her. Multiply this scenario by thousands of times, as it very well could be under SB 9, and we are looking at an epidemic of crime and a public health crisis.  

A healthcare provider adjusts treatment as symptoms change. SB 9 disallows such adjustment, putting everyone in the system—from the detention officer to the infirmary staff to all innocent Texas families—at more risk. There are no carve-outs in SB 9 for survivors of trafficking nor for people with developmental disabilities or serious mental illness. Instead of strengthening our local communities' capacities to rehabilitate offenders, support victims, or prevent crime, SB 9 will force counties to pay for a bureaucratic machine that empowers prosecutors to overrule magistrates, generate technical violations, and ensure recidivism. Ultimately, I fear this will cause more harm for innocent Texas families.  

I vote "no" on Senate Bill 9 because families in every jurisdiction of our state deserve solutions that deliver justice rather than disrupt, delay, or deny it.   

COOK

Senator Eckhardt submitted the following statement regarding SB 9:

Bail is how the criminal justice system strikes the balance between the pretrial presumption of innocence and public safety. The current tools available will not be improved by this bill.

Texas has one of the highest pretrial detention rates in the nation and the United States has the highest pretrial detention rate in the world. The solution is to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of processes, ensuring only the truly dangerous are held until trial, and those who are not a risk to public safety and not likely absconders are at liberty until trial. This bill slows the process and removes discretion for making determinations of risk on a case-by-case basis, thus exacerbating our pretrial detention rate without any evidence it will make Texans safer.

This bill slows the process by requiring that only elected judges make the bail determination in certain cases. Magistrates are crucial extenders of judicial capacity. There is no evidence that hearings officers' bail determinations are less effective, efficient or fair than the judges who supervise them. And where a judge or a prosecutor feels conditions of bail have been inappropriately set, there are existing procedures to change the bail determination.

The bill removes judicial discretion to set personal recognizance bonds in an expanded number of offenses. The expanded list includes misdemeanors, setting a dangerous precedent of extending pretrial detention to even lower level crimes. And the bill allows no discretion for release of defendants in cases where the evidence of guilt is weak and the risk of continuing threat to public safety or absconding is low.

Being Number 1 in pretrial detention rates, even as our violent crime rates have gone down, indicates that we err on over-detaining far more than we err on pretrial release. There is tragedy and injustice in either error. Slowing the process and removing discretion for personal recognizance bonds on lower-level offenses does not improve the acute error of unjustified release of dangerous defendants or the chronic error of unjustified detention of defendants who are low risk. The determination of risk should continue to be made by the judicial branch on a case-by-case basis rather than by the legislative branch through statute.

ECKHARDT

Senator Huffman moved to suspend the regular order of business to take up for consideration SB 40 at this time on its second reading:

SB 40, Relating to the use by a political subdivision of public funds to pay bail bonds.

The motion prevailed by the following vote:  Yeas 29, Nays 1.

Nays:  Eckhardt.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

The bill was read second time and was passed to engrossment by the following vote:  Yeas 27, Nays 3.

Yeas:  Alvarado, Bettencourt, Birdwell, Blanco, Campbell, Creighton, Flores, Hagenbuch, Hall, Hancock, A. Hinojosa, J. Hinojosa, Huffman, Hughes, Johnson, King, Kolkhorst, Menéndez, Middleton, Nichols, Parker, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner, Sparks, West, Zaffirini.

Nays:  Cook, Eckhardt, Gutierrez.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

Senator Huffman moved that Senate Rule 7.18 and the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended and that SB 40 be placed on its third reading and final passage.

The motion prevailed by the following vote:  Yeas 29, Nays 1.

Nays:  Eckhardt.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

The bill was read third time and was passed by the following vote:  Yeas 27, Nays 3.

Yeas:  Alvarado, Bettencourt, Birdwell, Blanco, Campbell, Creighton, Flores, Hagenbuch, Hall, Hancock, A. Hinojosa, J. Hinojosa, Huffman, Hughes, Johnson, King, Kolkhorst, Menéndez, Middleton, Nichols, Parker, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner, Sparks, West, Zaffirini.

Nays:  Cook, Eckhardt, Gutierrez.

Absent-excused:  Miles.

Senator Cook submitted the following statement regarding SB 40:

SB 40 is a result of miscommunication. No public funds have ever been used to pay bail in Texas. Therefore, I vote no.

On February 13, 2025, the Harris County Auditor sent a memorandum to members of the Senate regarding payments from Harris County to The Bail Project. The memo reads:

"Thank you for affording me the opportunity to provide clarity to what has been reported regarding The Bail Project. 

In mid-January 2025, misinformation was being circulated on social media about Harris County and payments to The Bail Project. At that time, representatives from the Office of County Administration, Purchasing, Intergovernmental and Global Affairs, and I, reviewed the processed payments made public by the Harris County Auditor's Office, to The Bail Project.

These payments were refunds for bail posted on an individual minus fees. Unlike, a surety bail company, The Bail Project pays the full amount of the bond. Then, when the case is disposed of, a judge orders the refund of the bond.

Additionally, The Bail Project has no supplier number in Harris County which is issued to any vendor that provides services to the county. The Bail Project is not being paid by Harris County taxpayer dollars for services rendered but rather refunded bail money as ordered by the court for bond posted by the organization."

If the returned transactions reflect any message, it is that community-support models of release, which provide social accountability, court reminders, and transportation assistance, result in higher court appearance rates than for-profit bail bondsmen. Any refund made to a charitable bail organization only exists because of the organization's success in returning clients to court.

COOK

Senator Eckhardt submitted the following statement regarding SB 40:

This is a solution in search of a problem. Aside from a discredited tweet, there is no evidence that any local governments are bonding defendants' appearance through payments to nonprofit corporations. The Texas Constitution Article. III, Section 52, and a solid line of case law interpreting that provision, already prohibits governments from making public funds available for private purposes. Bail is an insurance policy that the court demands to bond the release and future appearance in court by the accused. No county attorney, county auditor or county treasurer would allow the same government that requires the bond to also pay the bond.

ECKHARDT

The President announced the signing of the following enrolled resolution in the presence of the Senate: SCR 16.

On motion of Senator Huffman, Senators Birdwell, Campbell, Creighton, Hall, J. Hinojosa, Nichols, Paxton, Perry, and Schwertner will be shown as Co-authors of SB 9.

On motion of Senator Schwertner, Senator Parker will be shown as Co-author of SB 21.

On motion of Senator Huffman, Senators Birdwell, Campbell, Creighton, Hall, J. Hinojosa, Middleton, Paxton, Perry, and Schwertner will be shown as Co-authors of SB 40.

On motion of Senator Hall, Senator Huffman will be shown as Co-author of SB 79.

On motion of Senator Menéndez, Senator Zaffirini will be shown as Co-author of SB 188.

On motion of Senator West, Senators Alvarado, Kolkhorst, and Paxton will be shown as Co-authors of SB 213.

On motion of Senator West, Senators Alvarado, Kolkhorst, and Paxton will be shown as Co-authors of SB 229.

On motion of Senator Middleton, Senator Kolkhorst will be shown as Co-author of SB 403.

On motion of Senator Sparks, Senator Flores will be shown as Co-author of SB 494.

On motion of Senator Sparks, Senator Middleton will be shown as Co-author of SB 495.

On motion of Senator Schwertner, Senator West will be shown as Co-author of SB 551.

On motion of Senator Flores, Senator West will be shown as Co-author of SB 625.

On motion of Senator Huffman, Senators Birdwell, Campbell, Creighton, Hall, J. Hinojosa, Middleton, Nichols, Paxton, Perry, and Schwertner will be shown as Co-authors of SJR 1.

On motion of Senator Zaffirini, the Senate at 1:18 p.m. recessed until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

SB 9, SB 40, SJR 1

SCR 16, SR 62, SR 92, SR 95, SR 99, SR 108, SR 110, SR 111, SR 113, SR 114, SR 117, SR 120