Relating to the appointment of a special prosecutor by the court of criminal appeals for certain criminal cases.
Summary
SB 1861 would create a new procedure for handling certain criminal cases involving offenses under Texas election laws. The bill authorizes a law enforcement agency that investigates such an offense to submit a report of its findings and evidence to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon receiving the report, the court would be required to appoint a special prosecutor to review the materials and decide whether to file criminal charges, decline prosecution, or ask for additional investigation.
The bill also sets qualifications for the special prosecutor. The appointee must be a prosecuting attorney whose jurisdiction does not overlap with the investigating agency’s area, unless the agency has statewide jurisdiction, and must have appropriate experience to competently handle the matter. The measure would take effect September 1, 2025.
Impact
SB 1861 would add Article 2A.112 to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and expand the role of the Court of Criminal Appeals in election-law criminal matters by giving it authority to appoint a special prosecutor. It would affect law enforcement agencies investigating election-related offenses, prosecuting attorneys eligible for appointment, and the criminal enforcement process for those cases. The bill does not create new election offenses; instead, it changes who reviews and decides whether to pursue prosecution after an investigation.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill advanced with support but not unanimity, passing the Senate on 20-11 votes on both second and third reading after rules were suspended. That pattern indicates meaningful backing for the proposal, alongside a notable minority of opposition. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded votes are the main indicator of sentiment.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the bill’s shift of prosecutorial decision-making in election-law cases to a special prosecutor appointed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, rather than leaving the matter solely with local prosecutors or other existing authorities. Supporters likely view the measure as a way to ensure independent review and consistent enforcement of election laws, while opponents may be concerned about centralizing authority, altering local prosecutorial discretion, or creating a process that could be used selectively in politically sensitive cases. The 20-11 vote margins suggest these institutional and political concerns were significant.
Provides that law enforcement officers who appears before the court for prosecution of a violation of a protective order shall self-certify that the officer has successfully completed a specialized domestic violence prosecution training course.
Provides that law enforcement officers who appears before the court for prosecution of a violation of a protective order shall self-certify that the officer has successfully completed a specialized domestic violence prosecution training course.