Texas Senate Bill SB 2363

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/12/25
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/5/25

Caption

Relating to the prosecution of the criminal offense of unlawfully publishing a vote.

Summary

SB 2363 amends Section 61.006 of the Texas Election Code, which addresses unlawfully publishing a vote. The bill revises the offense to make it a crime when a person intentionally or knowingly publishes how a voter has voted without the voter’s effective consent. It also defines key terms such as “effective consent” and “publish,” broadening the statute to cover oral, written, telecommunication, and electronic communication. The bill keeps the offense classified as a third-degree felony and preserves an affirmative defense for publication made pursuant to another state law requiring disclosure. It also clarifies that the new law applies only to offenses committed on or after September 1, 2025, the bill’s effective date.

Impact

The bill would narrow and modernize the existing election-law offense by focusing on the unauthorized disclosure of how a voter cast a ballot, rather than limiting the statute to conduct occurring in a polling place. It expands the statute’s reach to modern forms of communication, including electronic publication, and updates the consent framework used to determine whether disclosure is unlawful. The change would affect voters, election officials, prosecutors, and anyone who communicates private voting information, while leaving the felony penalty unchanged.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests the bill was generally supported in committee, as the committee substitute was reported favorably by a 9-1 vote. At the same time, the bill was not ultimately advanced further in the Senate, as reflected by its later status of not being placed again on the intent calendar. With no committee transcript available, the record shows procedural support but limited evidence of broader floor-level consensus.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the scope of criminal liability for publishing voting information. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a privacy and election-integrity measure that updates the law for modern communications, while any dissent may have centered on concerns about overbreadth, free-speech implications, or whether the statute should reach conduct beyond the polling place. The committee vote of 9-1 indicates at least one member objected, but the available record does not identify the specific objection.