Texas House Bill HB 298

Texas 2025 - 89th 2nd C.S.

• Filed: 8/25/25
• Filed: 8/26/25

Caption

Relating to a vacancy in the office of senator or representative due to excessive absence.

Summary

HB 298 would create a new statutory ground for a vacancy in the office of a Texas senator or representative when a legislator repeatedly fails to attend floor sessions without leave from a majority of the chamber. Under the bill, a vacancy would occur after the 14th unexcused absence during a regular session or after the 3rd unexcused absence during a special session. The measure is aimed at ensuring attendance and participation in legislative business by tying repeated absence to forfeiture of office. The bill amends the Election Code by adding Section 201.031, which would govern how excessive absence is treated as a vacancy in legislative office. It applies only to absences occurring on or after the bill’s effective date. The bill also includes a standard effective-date clause allowing immediate effect if it receives the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in each chamber; otherwise, it would take effect on the 91st day after adjournment.

Impact

HB 298 would change Texas election and legislative vacancy law by adding a specific trigger for forfeiture of office based on attendance at floor sessions. If enacted, it would give the state a statutory mechanism to declare a legislative seat vacant when a member accumulates the specified number of unexcused absences, potentially leading to a special election or other vacancy-filling process under existing law. The practical effect would be to increase pressure on legislators to remain present during regular and special sessions and to formalize consequences for repeated nonattendance.

Sentiment

Based on the available record, the bill appears to have been introduced and referred to the House State Affairs Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided here. As a result, there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s framing suggests a reform-oriented approach focused on accountability and attendance, but the absence of recorded discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to assess beyond the proposal’s apparent intent.

Contention

The main point of contention likely concerns whether repeated absence should be treated as a forfeiture of elected office and who should control the leave process. Supporters would likely view the bill as an accountability measure to prevent legislators from avoiding their duties, while critics may argue that it could be used strategically against political opponents, may interfere with legislative independence, or could be too rigid in situations involving illness, emergencies, or protest tactics. The bill’s requirement that leave be granted by a majority of the chamber also raises questions about partisan control and the fairness of enforcing attendance rules.