Texas House Bill HJR189

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/12/25

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 189 proposes a constitutional amendment to expand and clarify the Texas Attorney General’s authority in election-related criminal cases. The resolution would add a new subsection to Article IV, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution stating that the Attorney General has concurrent jurisdiction with each county or district attorney to represent the state in prosecuting criminal offenses prescribed by Texas election laws. If approved by voters, the amendment would place the Attorney General on equal footing with local prosecutors for election-law criminal prosecutions, while leaving county and district attorneys’ authority intact. The measure is limited to criminal offenses under the election laws and does not itself create new election crimes; instead, it changes who may prosecute those offenses on behalf of the state.

Impact

The bill would amend the Texas Constitution, specifically Article IV, Section 22, by expressly authorizing the Attorney General to prosecute election-law criminal offenses concurrently with county and district attorneys. This would affect the allocation of prosecutorial authority in election-related cases and could influence how the state enforces election laws, but it would not alter the underlying election statutes defining offenses. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it would take effect only if approved by voters at the November 4, 2025 election.

Sentiment

Based on the available context, the bill appears to be procedural and enforcement-focused rather than highly controversial in the record provided. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the materials supplied. The referral to the State Affairs Committee suggests it was treated as a constitutional and governmental-structure issue.

Contention

The main point of contention likely concerns the balance of prosecutorial power between the Attorney General and local prosecutors. Supporters would likely view the amendment as strengthening statewide enforcement of election laws and ensuring consistent prosecution, while critics may worry about centralizing authority in the Attorney General’s office or creating overlap with county and district attorneys. No specific objections or named opponents are provided in the available record.