Relating to the duty of the attorney general to prosecute criminal offenses prescribed by the election laws of this state.
Summary
HB 5138 would expand and clarify the Texas attorney general’s authority to prosecute criminal offenses under the state’s election laws. The bill creates a new subchapter in the Government Code requiring law enforcement agencies to send the attorney general any report finding probable cause that a person committed an election-related criminal offense, and it requires local prosecutors and law enforcement to provide information the attorney general requests to support those investigations. It also states that, notwithstanding other law, the attorney general has jurisdiction to prosecute these offenses and represents the state in those cases.
The bill further amends the Election Code to align existing provisions with the new Government Code subchapter. It changes the language in Sections 273.021 and 273.022 to make clear that the attorney general may prosecute election-law crimes, appear before a grand jury in those matters, and direct a county or district attorney to prosecute or assist in the prosecution. The bill applies only to offenses committed on or after its effective date, September 1, 2026, and preserves prior law for earlier conduct.
Impact
If enacted, HB 5138 would materially shift enforcement of election-related criminal offenses by giving the attorney general explicit statewide prosecutorial authority and access to investigative information from local agencies. It would affect Chapter 402 of the Government Code and Sections 273.021 and 273.022 of the Election Code, while leaving pre-effective-date offenses under existing law. The practical effect would be to increase the attorney general’s role in election-crime enforcement and potentially reduce the exclusive role of local prosecutors in these cases.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have support from a majority in the House and enough support to advance through the Senate committee process, but it also drew meaningful opposition, as reflected in the close committee vote and repeated failed amendment attempts in the Senate. The committee substitute was reported adversely with a favorable substitute, suggesting the underlying concept advanced but remained contested. Overall, the sentiment was mixed: proponents favored stronger statewide enforcement of election laws, while opponents were concerned about the scope of the attorney general’s authority and the implications for local prosecutorial discretion.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the attorney general should have direct jurisdiction to prosecute election-law crimes, rather than relying primarily on local county and district attorneys. Supporters likely view the bill as a way to ensure consistent enforcement and address cases that local authorities may not pursue, while critics may see it as an expansion of state power that could override local control and alter the traditional division of criminal prosecution authority. The Senate vote pattern, including failed amendments, indicates disagreement over how far the attorney general’s role should extend and how much coordination or direction should be required with local prosecutors.
Proposing a constitutional amendment specifying the authority of the attorney general to prosecute a criminal offense prescribed by the election laws of this state.