Transcript Highlights:

• How often in your experience are indigency applications being denied?
• That outline what indigent means.
• You are, you know, if you're not indigent, you should be hiring a private attorney.
• , getting indigent services from the public defender.
• You're homeless, you know, poor really struggling to pay for indigent defense services when their indigent

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 365 is a bill relative to proof of United States citizenship for indigent voters.
• United States citizenship for indigent United States citizenship for indigent voters<00:30:09.440
• might that for a a voter who is indigent might not<00:33:32.799> have<00:33:32.960> the
• So, I can easily see that an indigent person might have trouble getting it even if they knew when and
• Um, how do you define or how would you think indigent would be defined because it's not in the bill?"

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 219, which would revise the renewable portfolio standard by changing several class definitions, eliminating Class 2, lowering the utility obligation for Class 1 thermal renewable energy certificates from 2.2% to 1.7%, and adjusting alternative compliance payments. Representative Vose said the bill would save ratepayers an estimated $5.7 million annually, arguing that Class 2 is already saturated and that the changes would not materially affect renewable energy development. Members questioned the fiscal impact, with an amended fiscal note cited as showing a $1.2 million reduction in general fund revenue, and some members raised concerns that the bill could weaken one of the remaining incentives for renewable investment. The committee also reviewed the bill’s history, including that it had been added to HB 2 and then removed in conference committee. No vote was taken in the work session. The committee then heard House Bill 164, concerning local records retention and the creation of a local records manager position. Secretary of State David Scanlan testified that the position has existed in statute for years but has never been funded, and said the need has grown as records management has become more digital and ADA accessibility has become more important. He described the bill as a way to help towns preserve and digitize records, especially for smaller communities with limited resources, while keeping records locally when possible. Members asked about the fiscal note, the potential cost of a public website and storage system, and whether the state could start by funding the position alone; the secretary said the staffing cost estimate remained accurate but that storage costs could rise over time. Several members expressed support and suggested further discussion with the Department of Information or other agencies. The work session was then closed without action. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 365, which would provide proof of U.S. citizenship assistance for indigent voters. Secretary Scanlan said the bill is intended to help voters comply with the new voter registration documentation requirements by allowing the state to verify eligibility through federal, private, and other state databases, and by providing vouchers to cover the cost of obtaining documents such as birth certificates. He compared the proposal to the earlier voter ID law, which he said was successfully implemented with accommodations for voters lacking acceptable ID. Members asked how “indigent” would be defined and how the process would work for out-of-state-born applicants; the secretary said indigency would likely be based on a voter’s statement of inability to pay and that the state would help identify where to obtain records and, if necessary, verify them through outside databases. The discussion continued as the transcript ended, with no vote recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• For indigent clients, getting to court can be its own battle.
• The way that we do that is now through the Department of Indigent Defense Services.
• The Office of the State Public Defender is part of the Department of Indigent Defense Services.
• Through the Department of Indigent Defense Services.
• The Office of the State Public Defender is part of the Department of Indigent Defense Services.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, if they indigent defendant office.
• Um, but they have a significant amount of indigent funds.
• <00:36:47.599> I significant amount of indigent funds.
• I significant amount of indigent funds.
• 36:49.920> they mean indigent population because they mean indigent population because they are

Keywords: Accountability, Efficiency, Transparency - Room 210; 28 January, 2026: 10:30 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first nominated and elected Senator Lane Taylor as secretary by voice vote, with no opposition. It then took up several bills and reported each one out after brief explanations and no recorded opposition. Senate Bill 2372, from the Department of Archives and History, would allow county filing-fee revenues now used only for preservation of historic records to also support records management, historic preservation, and museum services in counties. Barry White said the money is not for capital projects, but could fund services such as building assessments and recommendations. The committee also heard Senate Bill 2378, which would raise court reporter transcript fees from $2.40 to $4.00 per page; the sponsor said most costs are paid by litigants, while county funds are mainly affected in indigent criminal appeals. Both bills were advanced. The committee next considered Senate Bill 2401, relating to Accelerate Mississippi. Senator Sparks said it would extend the repealer to 2029, update procurement and reporting provisions, change some federal terminology, move the annual report deadline from October 1 to November 1, and repeal obsolete workforce-area references. It was reported out after a brief question about the obsolete sections. The committee also advanced Senate Bill 2402, the Amy Act, which removes the five-day grace period for lobbyist registration so registration must occur before a person begins lobbying; sponsors said the goal is transparency and tracking misinformation, not changing the definition of lobbyist. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 2445 on community mental health centers. Department of Mental Health Executive Director Wendy Bailey said the bill would create a formal performance audit process, with standards developed by June 30, 2027 and audits beginning in FY28 every two years. Centers failing standards would be placed on probation, and continued failure could lead to temporary replacement of leadership by DMH-selected contractors until compliance is restored. Members asked about current probation and decertification procedures, the number of struggling centers, and whether consolidation would be preferable; Bailey said the department wants to preserve local centers and use the process only as a temporary intervention. The bill was discussed but the transcript cuts off before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the record, Travis Fink, North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents.
• For the record, Travis Fink, North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents.
• So, Madam Chair, Senator Paulson, members of the committee, we're indigent defense.
• Where indigent defense comes at it from the perspective of is we have approximately 17,000 some case
• And again, the reason indigent defense assisted the police chief with that is because, again, we end

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened with a hearing on HB 1596, which would change low-level marijuana and THC possession and paraphernalia offenses into non-criminal citations or infractions, with fines and court procedures varying by amount and age. The bill’s sponsor said it was intended to reduce burdens on law enforcement, prosecutors, indigent defense, and the courts, while still deterring possession; testimony from the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents supported the bill but suggested an amendment to keep those under 21 in infraction status rather than non-criminal citation status, to align more closely with alcohol laws. Committee members questioned whether the bill was based on weight rather than potency, how it would affect criminal records, and whether the proposed amendment would treat 20-year-olds with marijuana similarly to 20-year-olds with alcohol. Opposition came from the Chiefs of Police Association, Ward County Sheriff’s Department, and the Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ Association, which argued the bill would decriminalize a Schedule I substance and move North Dakota toward legalization contrary to voter decisions. They also said existing local plea practices already reduce workload and that the bill would still leave law enforcement with evidence handling and reporting duties. After debate, the committee adopted a do not pass recommendation on HB 1596 by a 5-2 vote. The committee then took up HB 1416, a gaming-related bill involving charitable gaming and the ability to conduct multiple gaming activities at a site. Members discussed concerns about rural facilities, local flexibility, and whether the bill was necessary given that gaming activities can be paused or covered during another event. Senator Myrdal moved a do not pass recommendation, which passed on a 5-2 vote. The committee then adjourned until the next morning, with two bills still pending for later consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll defer to the LAO or my Senate colleagues to explain the amount that they're investing for indigent
• There are additional dollars for indigent care and public hospitals in the two-party plan.
• There is, there are additional dollars for indigent care and public hospitals in the two-party plan.
• Indigent care services are still needed in our counties, and are still needed in our counties, and what
• And most especially, the ones who will suffer from this the most are the indigent.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, and related discussion of the legislative budget agreement. Committee staff and the Department of Finance described a two-year balanced plan with about $253 billion in General Fund spending, roughly $5.5 billion in higher assumed revenues than the May Revision, and about $36.5 billion in combined reserves. They said the package preserves or expands funding for schools and community colleges, child care, IHSS, Medi-Cal-related county administration, housing and homelessness programs, public hospitals, courthouse construction, and some criminal justice and prison-closure savings, while delaying or modifying several prior health care reductions and some Medi-Cal changes. Much of the member discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on low-income and immigrant Californians. Several Democrats argued the budget protects vulnerable residents by delaying some cuts, funding county eligibility work, indigent care, public hospitals, and food banks, and rejecting the Governor’s IHSS cuts and asset-limit proposal. Republicans criticized the budget for assuming future revenues, relying on new taxes, and not doing enough to address the structural deficit or improve accountability. Members also raised concerns and support around homelessness funding, Prop. 36, judgeships and courthouse funding, transit and GGRF allocations, local journalism, Caltrans fleet spending, and a proposed “fair share” revenue measure that was not yet before the committee. Public testimony was largely supportive of the budget’s health and human services provisions, especially the rejection of IHSS cuts and the asset-limit proposal, and the inclusion of funding for child care, sickle cell centers, domestic violence services, trauma recovery centers, distressed hospitals, county eligibility work, and transit programs. Some witnesses representing hospitals and health plans cautioned about the effects of moving certain Medi-Cal populations to fee-for-service and about proposed tax changes affecting health care providers. The chair said revenue trailer bills were still being finalized and would likely come back later in the week; the committee then moved to public comment, with the chair limiting speakers to about one minute each.

Transcript Highlights:

• Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Texas Indigent Defense Commission.
• And so our final witness on this panel will be from the Texas Indigent Defense. Commission, Mr.
• I am Scott Ehlers, I'm the Executive Director of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission.
• So, thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell you a little bit about the Texas Indigent Defense
• Texas Indigent Defense Commission.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• changes to emergency court orders to better protect Texans, as well as how our justice system handles indigent
• and to proceedings before a magistrate, including the appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant
• It is a recommendation of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission, of which Senator Brandon Creighton is
• I'm also a member of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission, Mr.
• I'm also a member of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission, Mr.

Bills: SB330, SB663, SB1020, SB1152, SB1164, SB1896, SB2111, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2797, SB2798, SB2371

Keywords: county funding, prosecutors' offices, elections, law enforcement, local government, community supervision, budget approval, corrections department, strategic plan, judicial oversight, SB 1020, Texas, personal bond office, pretrial release, electronic monitoring, GPS monitoring, global positioning system, bond conditions, probation, parole

Summary: The committee heard several criminal justice bills, with testimony largely focused on public safety, court procedures, and local criminal justice administration. SB 2371 would expand mandatory skimmer-reporting requirements from gas pumps to ATMs, point-of-sale systems, and virtual currency kiosks, with the Texas Financial Crimes Intelligence Center saying centralized reporting would improve investigations, preserve evidence, and help identify organized criminal groups. SB 2581 would repeal a special law governing commissary funds in certain large counties; the sponsor and the Sheriff’s Association said it would restore parity with other counties while keeping spending subject to audit and inmate-benefit limits. Both bills were laid out and left pending after testimony, with no public witnesses opposing them at the hearing. The committee also heard SB 330, which would require voter approval before counties over a certain size reduce prosecutor funding, similar to an existing law for law enforcement budgets. Supporters argued prosecutors are essential to public safety and need stable funding, while an opponent from the Texas Civil Rights Project said the bill would restrict local budget flexibility and impose costly elections. SB 663 would remove district judges’ approval role for community supervision and corrections department budgets, replacing it with judge review after TDCJ-CJAD approval; probation officials said the change would reduce delays and confusion without reducing judicial oversight. SB 1020 would require more immediate sharing of ankle-monitor violation information and clarify that such records are not judicial work product; the Harris County DA’s office and Crime Stoppers supported it, citing inconsistent local practices and delays that can hinder prosecutions. The committee then took up SB 1164 on emergency detention and court-ordered mental health services. The bill, from the Texas Judicial Commission on Mental Health, would update emergency detention forms, clarify officer duties, allow filings in the county where a person is apprehended or located, and add a factor related to a person’s inability to recognize symptoms or appreciate treatment risks. Supporters included family members, law enforcement, and mental health and judicial witnesses who described cases where earlier intervention might have prevented tragedy; opponents warned the broader language could be misused and emphasized due process and the need for dangerousness to remain the standard. SB 2111 on indigent defense would expand access to counsel at first hearings, strengthen managed assigned counsel programs, create internships and fellowships, and adjust other defense-related procedures; the Texas Indigent Defense Commission and county defense program leaders supported it, while the committee substitute removed some provisions to reduce fiscal impact. Finally, SB 2383 would let recently retired DPS officers return to work in limited roles to help address staffing shortages, and SB 2797 would create reciprocal discovery requirements for criminal cases; prosecutors and some committee members said it would reduce trial surprise and improve truth-seeking, while others questioned whether the bill fully matched the state’s disclosure obligations and whether it could burden defense rights. Several bills were left pending after testimony, and the committee established a quorum later in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Interested parties argue that the statutory provisions governing indigent defense for inmates are unclear
• laws, Article 26.051 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, address the vision of legal defense for indigent
• Section 841.05 requires the Office of the State Council for Offenders to represent indigent individuals
• Today's role in providing legal representation to indigent inmates is defined clearly.
• just want to clarify real quick, we are for this because we believe that representation, whether indigent

Bills: HB153, HB1828, HB2306, HB2498, HB3464, HB3488, HB3636, HB3673, HB3834, HB3860, HB4120, HB4937, HB1515, HB153

Keywords: education, funding, student resources, technology access, equal opportunity, veterans treatment court, mental health, criminal justice, rehabilitation, eligibility criteria, veterans, treatment court, military service, legislation, legislative leave, correctional officers, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, accumulated leave, compensatory time, parole eligibility

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, there are a lot of people that are indigent.
• It's OK, did you just say that indigent people aren't covered under this bill?
• What I'm saying is, what if the person that's incompetent is indigent.
• Is so indigent people who come to you will be paid for by HHSC, ma'am. OK, and um.
• So I was just wondering because I worry about indigent people.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are a lot of people that are indigent. When they are indigent, who pays for the...
• Indigent people aren't covered under this bill? Is that what you said?
• Is what if the person that's incompetent is indigent? Yeah.
• So indigent people who come to you will be paid for by HHSC? Yes, ma'am.
• So I was just wondering, because I worry about indigent people.

Bills: SB670, SB1388, SB627, SB912, SB269, SB528, HB2711, HB4819, HB5248, HB4175

Keywords: SB 670, investigational sun protection products, sun protection, sunscreen, FDA approval, clinical trial, phase one trial, patient access, informed consent, physician prescription, Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas Medical Board, compassionate use, experimental treatment, medical freedom, patient autonomy, healthcare regulation, dietitian, dietitians, licensed dietitian

Transcript Highlights:

• does not clearly specify how these schedules should apply to attorneys representing children and indigent
• entitled to reasonable fees and expenses set by the court to be paid by the parents unless they are indigent
• I am the director of family protection representation at the Texas Indigent Defense Commission, and I'm
• I am the director of family protection representation at the Texas Indigent Defense Commission, and I'm
• I actually sat on the task force with the Texas Indigent Defense Commission committee that worked on

Bills: SB387, SB1650, SB1838, SB1839, SB1923, SB1940, SB2052

Keywords: judicial bond, guardianship, probate law, county judge, statutory county court, attorney general, criminal prosecution, public order, law enforcement, jurisdiction, attorney ad litem, parent-child relationship, compensation, legal representation, government entity, probate, court proceedings, record delivery, wills, legal documentation

Summary: The Senate Committee on Jurisprudence heard several family-law and probate bills. Senate Bill 2052 would codify a rebuttable presumption that a parent acts in the best interest of a child and require clear and convincing evidence to overcome that presumption in disputes involving non-parents; the author and several witnesses supported the bill as a clarification of existing case law, while one witness suggested refining the modification language. Public testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1923, which would allow child support to follow a child placed temporarily with kin or fictive kin under a parental child safety placement or authorization agreement; the bill’s author and a grandparent caregiver testified in support, while one witness suggested the Attorney General could handle the change administratively. That bill was also left pending. Senate Bill 1838 would standardize fee schedules and compensation rules for attorneys ad litem and related court-appointed counsel in DFPS child-protection cases. The author said the bill would clarify unclear current law, and witnesses from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission and family-defense bar supported it, though one asked that expert-witness expenses be expressly included. Senate Bill 387 would raise the bond requirement for county judges handling guardianship proceedings to at least $500,000; the author described it as a refiling of a prior bill that passed unanimously but was vetoed, and a statutory probate judge testified in support. Senate Bill 1839 would require original or paper wills to be delivered to the transferee court when probate proceedings are transferred; the committee substitute broadened the delivery methods, and the district clerk witness supported the change. All three bills were left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 1536, which had previously been voted out with the wrong committee substitute; members reconsidered the vote, adopted the corrected substitute, and then voted 3-0 to report the bill favorably to the full Senate, with local and contested calendar certification. Finally, Senate Bill 1940 would create a transfer-on-death mechanism for manufactured homes classified as personal property, similar to existing tools for real property and vehicles; the author and an estate-planning attorney testified that it would streamline transfers and reduce probate costs. A non-substantive committee substitute was still being prepared, and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• North Dakota doesn't have an indigent fund to assist with those fees.
• North Dakota doesn't have an indigent fund to assist with those fees.
• Then we kind of drop down to the indigent defense, the court facility fee... ...drop down to the indigent
• Travis Fink, Executive Director, Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents.
• The commission is specifically focused on how it affects indigence.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• "Now, what does that mean when they get the indigent?
• I know what indigent means, but in this case, what does that mean?
• <00:44:21.119> but come up and say I I declare indigent but come up and say I I declare indigent
• status as indigent. status as indigent. >> Okay.<00:44:29.839> Okay.
• indigent indigent that<00:44:52.000> they<00:44:52.240> can<00:44:52.480> sign<

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to create a statewide system to implement the constitutional and statutory right to counsel for indigent
• to create a statewide system to implement the constitutional and statutory right to counsel for indigent
• clients in Massachusetts the statute assigns the Cpc to counsel for indigent clients in Massachusetts
• As a result, the overall structure of the indigent defense system in Massachusetts is shaped both by
• as discrimination matters, or may wish to have a greater voice and advocacy on issues affecting indigent

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 2522 / H. 5909, which would amend state labor law to treat the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) as a public employer and allow its employees to seek collective bargaining rights. The chair explained the Article 48 initiative process, noted that no opponents or members of the public had signed up to testify, and said written testimony would be accepted through March 20. The hearing focused on whether CPCS staff should be brought within the public-sector bargaining framework and how that would interact with the agency’s statutory duties. Expert testimony began with an NCSL analyst, who gave a national overview of public employee bargaining rights and examples of public defender unions in other states and localities, including Colorado, New York City, Indianapolis, Cook County, Maryland, and Illinois. Department of Labor Relations officials then reviewed prior failed organizing efforts at CPCS and its predecessor, explaining that earlier petitions were dismissed because the agency was not considered a public employer under existing law. They said passage of the initiative would not automatically unionize employees, but would allow a union to petition for an election or written majority authorization, with normal unit-appropriateness and supervisory/confidential employee issues still to be resolved. CPCS Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti testified that the agency supports providing information to the legislature but is not taking a position for or against unionization. He described CPCS’s statutory responsibilities, size, and current efforts to expand staffing after recent indigent-defense crises, and said any new bargaining framework would need to operate alongside the agency’s obligations to provide counsel. Proponents from SEIU Local 888 and allied labor groups argued that CPCS employees have long been denied the same collective bargaining rights as other public workers, and that a union would provide just-cause protections, a voice on staffing and working conditions, and better support for recruitment and retention. CPCS attorneys and staff testified in favor of the measure, citing heavy caseloads, rapid expansion, inadequate supervision and office support, and the need for representation in disciplinary and workplace disputes. Committee members asked about bargaining-unit composition, the role of the DLR, the effect of unionization on attorneys’ ethical duties, and the use and cost of paid signature gathering. The hearing ended with no votes taken and no opposition testimony presented.

Transcript Highlights:

• not clearly specify how these These schedules should apply to attorneys representing children and indigent
• entitled to reasonable fees and expenses set by the court to be paid by the parents unless they are indigent
• I am the director of family protection representation at the Texas Indigent Defense Commission and I'm
• counties don't have a fee schedule for child protection cases or they have submitted their criminal indigent
• I actually sat on the task force with the Texas Indigent Defense Commission. committee that worked on

Bills: SB387, SB1650, SB1838, SB1839, SB1923, SB1940, SB2052

Keywords: judicial bond, guardianship, probate law, county judge, statutory county court, attorney general, criminal prosecution, public order, law enforcement, jurisdiction, attorney ad litem, parent-child relationship, compensation, legal representation, government entity, probate, court proceedings, record delivery, wills, legal documentation

Transcript Highlights:

• They help indigent individuals in these civil matters. So these are not new uses for that fund.
• Indigent folks that may be targeted by federal actions. Okay, thank you.
• Legal defense services for indigent individuals.
• It supports indigent individuals filling out paperwork, giving advice on tenancy issues, and a whole
• So this targets specifically more rural areas and also areas where there are more indigent immigrants

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, I can easily see that an indigent person might have trouble getting it even if they knew when and
• So, I can easily see that an indigent person might have trouble getting it even if they knew when and
• Um, how do you define or how would you think indigent would be defined because it's not in the bill?
• Um, how do you define or how would you think indigent would be defined because it's not in the bill?
• would be defined because it's indigent would be defined because it's not<00:35:53.359> in<00:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 219, which would revise the renewable portfolio standard. Representative Bose explained that the bill would modify class one definitions, eliminate class two, reduce the utility obligation for class one thermal renewable energy certificates from 2.2% to 1.7%, and adjust alternative compliance payments for classes one, three, and four. He said the changes were intended to save ratepayers an estimated $5.7 million annually, would not materially harm the renewable portfolio standard, and would have little effect on class two because that market is already saturated. Members questioned the impact on consumers, the state budget, and the renewable energy fund; Bose said the fund had already been redirected in the state budget, and another member noted an amended fiscal note showing a $1.2 million reduction in general fund revenue. The committee also discussed the bill’s history, including that it had been added to HB 2 and later removed by the Senate, and Bose said the Senate’s eventual action was hard to predict. The committee then heard House Bill 164 on local records retention from Secretary of State David Scanlan. He said the long-standing local records manager position had never been funded, but that the need for it had grown as towns increasingly digitize records and must ensure accessibility, including ADA compliance. He described the bill as a way to provide state support and expertise to municipalities, especially smaller towns with limited resources, and said the fiscal note for hiring the position remained accurate, though broader website and storage costs could rise over time. Members asked about retrieving lost records, the cost of a public website, and whether records should remain local or be stored at the state level; Scanlan said the state would serve as a resource rather than take control of local records. Finally, the committee began work on House Bill 365, also with Secretary Scanlan, concerning proof of U.S. citizenship for indigent voters. He said the bill would help voters who may lack required documents under the new voter registration law by allowing the state to verify qualifications through federal, private, or other state databases and by providing vouchers to cover the cost of obtaining documents such as birth certificates. He compared the proposal to earlier voter ID accommodations and said the goal was to help qualified voters meet the new requirements without weakening them. Members raised questions about defining “indigent,” how out-of-state birth records would be handled, and the practicality of the verification process; Scanlan said the term would likely need further discussion and that the state would try to assist voters before election day whenever possible.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman and members Senate bill 2111 relates to legal representation of indigent persons in this State
• , and to proceedings before a magistrate, including the appointment of indigent defendant.
• It is the recommendation of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission of the Texas Department of Justice
• House but nonetheless I think this is a that would be a program that could help rural Texas and indigent
• I'm also a member of the Texas Indigent Defense Commission. Mr. Chairman, Senator Zaffirani.

Bills: SB330, SB663, SB1020, SB1152, SB1164, SB1896, SB2111, SB2196, SB2383, SB2581, SB2797, SB2798, SB2371

Keywords: county funding, prosecutors' offices, elections, law enforcement, local government, community supervision, budget approval, corrections department, strategic plan, judicial oversight, SB 1020, Texas, personal bond office, pretrial release, electronic monitoring, GPS monitoring, global positioning system, bond conditions, probation, parole

Transcript Highlights:

• Under, under current law, indigent persons in family court are appointed from a list of approved attorneys
• Uh, SB 2501 addresses this by allowing indigent parents to, uh, in child welfare cases filed by DFPS
• control of their children, and this legislature has previously enacted a statute that mandates that indigent
• So indigent parents often get assigned an attorney that doesn't understand.
• Like I said, if they raise money, this would allow indigent parents to be able to have that same latitude