Prosecutorial Integrity | House Gov Oversight, 9.30.2026

Estimated Time to Read: 4 minutes

Texas Policy Research submitted the following written testimony to all members of the Texas House Select Committee on Governmental Oversight ahead of its interim hearing.

• Committee: House Select Committee on Governmental Oversight
• Hearing Date: September 30, 2026
• Context: 89th Legislature, Interim
• Subject: Prosecutorial Integrity
• Position: Informational
• Texas Liberty Compact:
  • Restore Legislative Supremacy
  • Protect Economic Liberty & Due Process
  • Make Government Transparent
• Submitted By: Jeramy Kitchen
• Entity: Texas Policy Research Action (TPRA)

The text below reproduces the testimony as submitted to the committee.
The submitted document linked above is the authoritative version.

Chairman Vasut and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding prosecutorial integrity and the involvement of nongovernmental organizations and consultants in local prosecutorial functions.

Texans are right to expect prosecutors to enforce the law faithfully, protect the public, respect constitutional rights, and remain accountable for their decisions. Prosecutorial discretion is necessary, but it is not immunity from accountability. At the same time, outrage over individual cases should not become a justification for concentrating prosecutorial power in another statewide official.

The decision to investigate, charge, negotiate, dismiss, or prosecute a case is a core governmental responsibility. It must remain under the control of publicly accountable officials and be grounded in applicable law and case-specific facts. Outside organizations may provide legitimate training, research, technology, or specialized expertise, but they should not exercise charging authority, direct government personnel, control prosecutorial policies, or make binding recommendations in individual cases.

Any arrangement with an outside organization should be governed by a written agreement defining its scope, compensation, deliverables, supervision, access to information, and limitations. The public should be able to identify the organization, any public or private funding provided to the governmental entity, relevant financial conflicts, the services performed, and any role the organization has in developing general prosecutorial policy.

Access to case information should be limited to what is necessary for a defined governmental purpose. Agreements should include requirements governing cybersecurity, retention, sharing, deletion, and unauthorized disclosure. Outside involvement must not obscure discovery obligations, chain-of-custody requirements, public-record responsibilities, or accountability when evidence is concealed, altered, lost, or mishandled.

Transparency should protect victims, witnesses, privileged material, and active investigations through narrow exceptions. Those protections should not conceal contracts, expenditures, general policies, performance reports, funding relationships, or conflicts of interest. Contractors should not use taxpayer funds to lobby for expanded prosecutorial authority or additional spending from which they may benefit.

These rules must remain viewpoint-neutral. Organizations should neither receive privileged access nor be excluded merely because public officials agree or disagree with their policy perspectives. The relevant questions are whether the arrangement is lawful, transparent, free of conflicts, protective of sensitive information, and subordinate to the elected prosecutor’s public duties.

When prosecutors fail, Texas should enforce existing ethical, disciplinary, removal, electoral, and judicial accountability mechanisms. If the Legislature determines that statutory duties require clarification, it should enact clear and generally applicable laws. It should not transfer open-ended authority to the executive branch or create a statewide prosecutor capable of overriding local decisions based on political disagreement. Centralization does not eliminate political influence. It relocates and magnifies it.

The Texas Liberty Compact calls for protecting due process, restoring legislative supremacy, and making government transparent. Prosecutorial accountability should advance all three.

Thank you for your consideration.

---

Sources

• Interim Charges, Texas House of Representatives, 89th Legislature
• Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 24
• Texas Government Code, Chapter 41.102
• Abbott wants legislation on statewide prosecutor, more bail reform, The Texas Tribune, May 2026
• Prosecutor Accountability in Texas, Texas District & County Attorneys Association, 2023
• District Attorneys Face New Reporting Requirements, Texas Scorecard, July 2026

Related TPR Work

• Texas Chief State Prosecutor Proposal and Liberty Principles, December 2025
• Abbott's Public Safety Push Sets Up Constitutional Fight. May 2026

---