Relating to requirements for the exercise of the power of impeachment by the House of Representatives and providing that officers against whom articles of impeachment are preferred receive pay during the pendency of impeachment proceedings.
Summary
HB 5020 would add procedural requirements for the Texas House when it exercises its impeachment power. The bill requires the House or a House committee to conduct a thorough and even-handed investigation of all impeachment articles, place testimony under oath, and give the accused officer and counsel the right to be present at hearings and to examine witnesses and evidence. It also requires the House to provide the officer with transcripts and evidence at least seven days before a hearing and gives House members at least 14 days to review the impeachment record before voting.
The bill also addresses compensation during impeachment-related suspension. It provides that an officer suspended under Article XV, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution would be suspended with pay during the pendency of the impeachment proceedings. The act would take effect immediately if approved by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, or otherwise on September 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 5020 would amend Chapter 665 of the Texas Government Code by adding specific procedural safeguards and timing requirements for House impeachment proceedings, and by creating a statutory rule that impeachment suspension is paid suspension. It would affect the House of Representatives, House committees, and any state officer facing impeachment, while also shaping how impeachment records, testimony, and voting timelines are handled under state law.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented debate or recorded support/opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears aimed at formalizing due process protections and compensation rules in impeachment proceedings rather than expanding impeachment power itself.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the added procedural constraints on the House’s impeachment authority and the requirement that suspended officers continue to receive pay. Supporters would likely view the bill as ensuring fairness, transparency, and adequate time for review, while critics may see it as limiting legislative flexibility, slowing impeachment proceedings, or making it more difficult to act quickly in serious misconduct cases.
Proposing a constitutional amendment prescribing certain requirements applicable to the impeachment of an officer by the house of representatives and repealing the requirement that an officer against whom articles of impeachment have been preferred be suspended from the exercise of the duties of office during the pendency of the impeachment.
Relating to the impeachment or removal from office of certain public officers, including procedures governing the impeachment, trial on impeachment, and disqualification of state officers, and to the grounds for which certain public officers may be removed from office.
Relating to the impeachment or removal from office of certain public officers, including procedures governing the impeachment, trial on impeachment, and disqualification of state officers, and to the grounds for which certain public officers may be removed from office.
A RESOLUTION laying before the House of Representatives Articles of Impeachment against Julie Muth Goodman, Circuit Judge for the 22nd Judicial Circuit consisting of Fayette County.