Texas House Bill HB26

Texas 2025 - 89th 2nd C.S.

• Filed: 8/18/25
• Out of House Committee: 8/25/25
• Voted on by House: 8/27/25
• Out of Senate Committee: 8/27/25
• Voted on by Senate: 8/27/25
• Governor Action: 9/17/25
• Bill Becomes a Law: 9/17/25

Summary

HB 26 authorizes sheriffs and constables in counties with populations over 3.3 million to enter into contracts to provide law enforcement services for local governments, property owners’ associations, or landowners. The services may cover areas in and near the property or area managed by the contracting entity, and may extend to people living in or visiting those areas. The bill defines “local government” broadly to include counties, municipalities, municipal utility districts, school districts, junior college districts, and other political subdivisions. The bill also removes county commissioners courts from the approval process for these contracts in the affected counties. Under HB 26, a sheriff or constable may negotiate and enter into the contract, and determine its terms, even if the commissioners court does not approve or attempts to restrict the arrangement. The act takes effect on the 91st day after the legislative session ends.

Impact

HB 26 amends the Texas Local Government Code by adding new sections to Chapters 85 and 86, creating a special contracting authority for sheriffs and constables in the state’s largest counties. It limits the change to counties with more than 3.3 million residents, which makes the bill targeted to a small number of jurisdictions. The bill shifts contracting power away from county commissioners courts and toward independently elected law enforcement officials, potentially affecting how supplemental policing services are arranged for neighborhoods, developments, and other local entities.

Sentiment

The voting record suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition. It passed the House on third reading 88-49 and the Senate 21-5, indicating a clear majority in favor but not broad unanimity. Earlier procedural votes and the failed amendment also show that the bill moved through with some resistance and attempts to alter its terms. Overall, the sentiment appears generally favorable among supporters of expanded local law enforcement contracting authority, while a substantial minority expressed concern.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s removal of commissioners courts’ ability to block or condition these contracts. Opponents likely viewed this as a reduction in county oversight and a shift of fiscal and policy control to sheriffs and constables, while supporters likely argued it preserves the independence of elected law enforcement officials and allows quicker responses to local security needs. The bill’s application only to counties over 3.3 million residents also suggests it was tailored to a specific large-county governance dispute, which may have contributed to the divided votes.