Texas Senate Bill SB11

Texas 2025 - 89th 1st C.S.

• Filed: 7/21/25
• Out of Senate Committee: 7/24/25
• Voted on by Senate: 8/1/25

Caption

Relating to the duty of the attorney general to prosecute criminal offenses prescribed by the election laws of this state.

Summary

SB 11 expands and clarifies 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 named person committed an election-related 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 prosecutions. The bill amends the Election Code to align existing provisions with the new Government Code subchapter. It changes the attorney general’s role from permissive authority to explicit jurisdiction and allows the attorney general to appear before a grand jury and direct a county or district attorney to prosecute or assist in the case. The changes apply only to offenses committed on or after the bill’s effective date, which is 91 days after the legislative session ends.

Impact

SB 11 would materially shift enforcement of Texas election-law crimes by centralizing prosecutorial authority in the attorney general’s office and creating mandatory information-sharing duties for local law enforcement and prosecutors. It amends Chapter 402, Government Code, and Sections 273.021 and 273.022, Election Code, to give the attorney general direct jurisdiction over election-related criminal offenses and to authorize coordination with local prosecutors. The bill affects state and local criminal justice practices, especially in election investigations and prosecutions, while preserving prior law for offenses committed before the effective date.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have advanced with support from a majority of voting members, but the recorded votes show a consistently divided chamber, with 17-12 and 19-11 margins on key procedural and passage votes. That pattern suggests the measure was politically significant and controversial, but still had enough support to move through the legislative process and be received from the Senate. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record reflects support sufficient for passage rather than detailed debate.

Contention

The main point of contention is the expansion of the attorney general’s power into election-crime prosecutions, which can be seen as shifting authority away from local county and district attorneys. Opponents are likely concerned about state-level intervention in local criminal matters and mandatory reporting/cooperation requirements, while supporters likely view the bill as strengthening enforcement and ensuring consistent prosecution of election offenses. The close vote margins indicate substantial disagreement over both the policy choice and the balance of power between state and local officials.