SB 11 represents a significant and deliberate step to ensure consistent enforcement of Texas election law by clarifying and expanding the Attorney General's jurisdiction over election-related criminal offenses. The bill addresses a specific gap identified by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in State v. Stephens, which held that the Attorney General could not initiate prosecutions for Election Code violations without the cooperation of local prosecutors. SB 11 responds by replacing permissive statutory language ("may prosecute") with a mandatory directive ("shall prosecute"), clearly asserting the legislature’s authority under Article IV, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution to assign duties to the Attorney General.
This legislation further establishes a uniform system for enforcement by requiring law enforcement agencies to submit probable cause reports directly to the Attorney General and to cooperate upon request in providing investigative records. By doing so, SB 11 ensures that credible election law violations are not left unaddressed due to local prosecutorial inaction or lack of capacity. The bill eliminates inconsistent enforcement across jurisdictions and strengthens accountability, providing a predictable and equitable legal framework statewide. This is particularly important in election law, where public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the process is essential to maintaining a functional democratic system.
One of the primary concerns raised by opponents is that the bill may infringe on local autonomy by overriding the traditional discretion of locally elected prosecutors. While the bill does shift some prosecutorial authority to the state level, it does not eliminate local jurisdiction. Local prosecutors may still initiate action independently, and the bill simply ensures that if they do not act, the state retains the capacity to enforce the law. This framework preserves the traditional structure of Texas criminal procedure while addressing the risk that some jurisdictions may under-enforce election laws due to political, resource, or policy constraints.
Additionally, concerns about politicization or prosecutorial overreach are valid but are not unique to this legislation. The bill does not expand the underlying scope of election law, nor does it increase penalties or create new offenses. It merely ensures that violations already on the books are subject to prosecution when warranted. Moreover, the bill’s application is prospective only, applying to offenses committed on or after its effective date, reducing the risk of retroactive enforcement concerns.
From a fiscal perspective, the Legislative Budget Board found no significant financial implications for the state or for local governments. The Attorney General’s Office is expected to absorb any additional responsibilities within existing resources, and local agencies are already responsible for sharing reports and investigatory materials under existing protocols. This positions the bill as a targeted enforcement enhancement that does not impose new operational burdens or costs.
Overall, Senate Bill 11 offers a pragmatic and constitutionally sound solution to ensure the effective enforcement of election laws throughout Texas. It promotes accountability, reinforces public trust in the electoral system, and clarifies the Attorney General’s role in maintaining the integrity of the vote. While careful oversight will always be necessary in matters of criminal enforcement, the bill provides a necessary and proportionate mechanism to uphold the rule of law where enforcement may otherwise falter. Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 11.
- Individual Liberty: The bill supports individual liberty by helping preserve the integrity of the electoral process, which is foundational to representative self-government. Voters’ rights are only meaningful if election laws are enforced consistently and violations are subject to real consequences. By ensuring a prosecutorial backstop when local authorities fail to act, the bill strengthens the legal protections around each citizen’s right to vote and have their ballot counted under lawful conditions. That said, caution is warranted. Because the Attorney General is a statewide elected official with partisan affiliations, centralizing prosecutorial discretion in this office carries a risk of politically motivated enforcement. While the bill does not create new offenses or penalties, critics may worry that it could be used selectively, chilling political participation in some communities. These risks underscore the importance of transparency and nonpartisan enforcement, but they do not outweigh the bill’s core purpose of safeguarding electoral rights.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility by ensuring that individuals who violate election laws can be held accountable, even in jurisdictions where enforcement is lax or politicized. It sends a clear message that election laws are not optional or selectively enforced and that violations will be pursued regardless of local political climates. This helps deter misconduct and promotes a culture of civic responsibility, especially in an area as vital as electoral integrity. By allowing the Attorney General to act only after receiving probable cause reports from law enforcement, the bill ensures that prosecution remains grounded in factual investigations, further supporting fair and responsible application of the law.
- Free Enterprise: The bill does not meaningfully impact free enterprise. It concerns election law enforcement and the internal structure of criminal prosecution, not private business regulation, market competition, or economic liberties. While public confidence in elections can contribute to a stable economic climate, there are no direct implications for businesses or entrepreneurs.
- Private Property Rights: There is no effect on private property rights. The bill does not expand eminent domain, authorize searches or seizures, or impact property use. It pertains exclusively to criminal procedure and prosecutorial jurisdiction in the enforcement of election laws.
- Limited Government: This is the principle most directly affected and most debated. Critics argue that the bill undermines limited government by concentrating prosecutorial authority in a statewide executive office and reducing the discretion of locally elected prosecutors. Traditionally, Texas has maintained a decentralized justice system where local officials retain broad latitude in enforcement decisions. However, a principled case can be made that the bill is consistent with limited government in the broader constitutional sense. It enforces laws already on the books without expanding state power into new areas. The Attorney General’s involvement is triggered only when probable cause exists and local prosecutors decline to act. This time-bound, evidence-based mechanism preserves local authority while ensuring that no part of the state becomes a de facto sanctuary for election law violations. In this way, the bill serves as a corrective tool rather than a permanent centralization of power.
