Texas House Bill HB 5464

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/14/25

Caption

Relating to the authority of the governor, and certain political subdivisions with respect to disasters.

Summary

HB 5464 would substantially limit disaster-response authority exercised by the governor and local officials under Chapter 418 of the Government Code. For certain large-scale disasters—those affecting at least two-fifths of Texas counties, at least half the state population, or most counties in multiple trauma service areas—the bill would require the governor to call the Legislature into special session before renewing or issuing a new disaster declaration tied to the same emergency. In that special session, lawmakers could renew or extend the disaster declaration, enact related laws, and consider other subjects included in the governor’s proclamation. The bill also shortens the duration of certain disaster declarations to 30 days unless the Legislature acts, with a 90-day exception for nuclear or radiological events recognized by the relevant federal agency. It repeals a current statute and clarifies that legislative votes to modify or terminate a disaster proclamation are not subject to the governor’s veto power. In addition, the bill narrows executive and local emergency powers by prohibiting the governor and presiding officers of political subdivisions from using disaster orders to require face masks or other personal protective equipment, unless another law specifically authorizes it, and from restricting or impairing the operation or occupancy of businesses.

Impact

HB 5464 would amend Chapter 418 of the Texas Government Code, shifting significant disaster-declaration authority away from the executive branch and toward the Legislature. It would impose new procedural limits on renewal of major disaster declarations, create a mandatory special-session mechanism for legislative review, repeal Section 418.173, and restrict both state and local officials from using disaster powers to mandate masks or to limit business operations. The bill would affect the governor, state emergency management authorities, and local governing bodies issuing disaster-related orders.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of debate or support/opposition from recorded proceedings. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a skeptical view of broad emergency executive authority and a preference for legislative oversight and limits on public-health and business restrictions during disasters. The absence of recorded votes or hearings means the overall sentiment in the legislative process cannot be measured from the provided materials.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be executive authority versus legislative control, and public-health/business regulation during emergencies. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s checks on prolonged disaster declarations, mask mandates, and business restrictions, arguing that emergency powers should be time-limited and subject to legislative approval. Opponents would likely argue that the bill could hamper rapid response in large-scale emergencies, reduce flexibility for governors and local officials, and interfere with public-health measures and local disaster management. The special-session trigger and 30-day limit are especially likely to be disputed because they could constrain emergency continuity during prolonged crises.