SB 1628 would change how Texas state agencies, local governments, and licensing authorities may use criminal history record information when screening applicants for public employment or occupational licenses. For public employment, the bill bars state agencies and local governments from asking about criminal history on initial applications, makes applicant criminal history confidential if collected during review, and limits consideration of convictions until after an applicant is otherwise qualified and conditionally offered a job. It also prohibits disqualification based on arrests not followed by charges, sealed or expunged convictions, and fine-only misdemeanors, while requiring an individualized assessment of whether a conviction directly relates to the job.
The bill adds notice and review procedures before a denial based on criminal history, including written notice, disclosure of the relevant record, an opportunity to submit evidence of rehabilitation or mitigation within 10 days, and a final written denial with appeal information. It also requires agencies and local governments to keep records, allow Texas Workforce Commission oversight, conduct audits and surveys, and report compliance data. In the licensing context, the bill prohibits criminal history questions on license applications, restricts disclosure and use of criminal history information, and limits denial, suspension, or revocation of licenses to offenses that directly relate to the occupation or are otherwise disqualifying by law.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to expand “fair chance” hiring and licensing rules across state and local government, while preserving exceptions for positions involving children or where other law requires criminal-history review. It would amend Government Code Chapter 656, add a new Local Government Code chapter, and revise Occupations Code provisions governing occupational licensing and criminal-history-based disqualification. The bill applies prospectively to applications submitted on or after its effective date, September 1, 2025.
The available legislative history shows little recorded debate or formal voting activity in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee testimony or floor votes. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to support rehabilitation and reduce automatic barriers to employment and licensing for people with prior convictions, while still allowing agencies to screen for offenses that are directly relevant to the job or license.
The main points of contention are likely to be the limits on employer and licensing authority discretion, the confidentiality and recordkeeping requirements, and the short 10-day window for applicants to submit rehabilitation evidence. Another likely concern is administrative burden on state agencies, local governments, and the Texas Workforce Commission, which would be responsible for audits, complaint handling, appeals, and quarterly reporting. Supporters would likely emphasize second-chance employment and individualized review, while opponents may focus on public safety, agency workload, and the scope of the restrictions.
SB 1628 would substantially revise Texas law governing criminal-history screening in public employment and occupational licensing. It would add new Government Code and Local Government Code provisions limiting when and how state agencies and local governments may ask about, collect, disclose, and rely on criminal history record information, and it would amend Occupations Code Chapter 53 to restrict licensing authorities from using criminal history before determining an applicant is otherwise qualified. The bill also creates oversight, complaint, appeal, audit, and reporting duties for the Texas Workforce Commission and imposes record-retention requirements on covered governmental entities.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or recorded support/opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s text suggests a reform-oriented, pro-reentry approach that favors second-chance hiring and licensing, but it also preserves carveouts for child-related positions and legally mandated background checks. Overall, the apparent sentiment is supportive of reducing blanket criminal-history barriers while maintaining targeted public-safety exceptions.
Likely areas of contention include whether government employers and licensing bodies should be prohibited from asking about criminal history on initial applications, how much discretion they should retain to reject applicants with prior convictions, and whether the bill’s “directly relates” standard is too restrictive or too vague. The 10-day rehabilitation-evidence period and the new compliance obligations may also draw criticism as administratively burdensome. Supporters would likely argue that the bill prevents unnecessary exclusion of rehabilitated applicants, while critics may worry about safety-sensitive jobs, implementation costs, and the limits on agency discretion.