Texas House Bill HJR7

Texas 2025 - 89th 1st C.S.

• Filed: 7/14/25

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment specifying the authority of the attorney general to prosecute a criminal offense prescribed by the election laws of this state.

Summary

HJR 7 proposes a constitutional amendment to expressly authorize the Texas Attorney General to have concurrent jurisdiction with county and district attorneys to prosecute criminal offenses under the state’s election laws. The resolution would amend Article IV, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution to add this authority to the Attorney General’s listed powers and duties. If approved by voters, the amendment would place the Attorney General on equal footing with local prosecutors for election-law criminal cases, rather than leaving prosecution solely to county or district attorneys. The measure would be submitted to voters at the May 2, 2026 election, with the ballot language asking whether the constitution should be amended to specify this prosecutorial authority.

Impact

The bill would change the Texas Constitution, not just ordinary statute, by creating explicit concurrent prosecutorial jurisdiction for the Attorney General in criminal cases arising under election laws. That would affect the allocation of enforcement authority between the state Attorney General’s office and local county and district attorneys, potentially expanding state-level involvement in election-related criminal prosecutions. It would not itself define new election crimes, but it would alter who may bring those prosecutions under existing election-law offenses.

Sentiment

Based on the bill’s text and the absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as an enforcement and authority clarification rather than a broader policy overhaul. The bill title and language suggest support from those who favor stronger statewide election-law enforcement, while the lack of recorded debate here means no formal sentiment can be confirmed from committee discussion or voting history. Overall, the proposal is likely to be viewed through the lens of election integrity and prosecutorial authority.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether the Attorney General should share criminal enforcement power with local prosecutors in election cases. Supporters may argue that concurrent jurisdiction ensures more consistent enforcement and allows the state to act when local authorities do not, while opponents may view it as an expansion of state power that could undermine county and district attorneys’ traditional role in criminal prosecutions. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, specific named opponents or supporters cannot be identified from the available materials.