Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

In Layman's Terms

SB 11 gives the Texas Attorney General primary authority to investigate and prosecute election law violations, shifting that responsibility away from local prosecutors. The committee substitute expands the Attorney General's authority by allowing immediate prosecution of election offenses without waiting for local prosecutors to act.

Digest

SB 11 proposes to centralize the prosecution of election-related criminal offenses in Texas by granting the Attorney General (AG) exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. Under the bill, any law enforcement agency that determines probable cause exists in an election-related offense must submit a report directly to the AG. Additionally, both local law enforcement and prosecutors are required to provide any requested information regarding election investigations to the AG in order to support the office’s prosecutorial efforts.

The bill expressly mandates that the Attorney General “shall” prosecute criminal violations of the Election Code, effectively removing discretion from locally elected prosecutors. The legislation amends Section 273.021 of the Election Code and adds a new subchapter to Chapter 402 of the Government Code to codify these duties. While the AG may still delegate cases to local prosecutors, this decision rests solely with the AG.

SB 11 includes a transitional provision clarifying that the changes in law apply only to offenses committed on or after the bill’s effective date. Offenses occurring before the effective date remain under the jurisdiction and procedures in place at the time of the alleged conduct.

The Committee Substitute for SB 11 marks a significant departure from the originally filed version by substantially expanding the Attorney General’s authority over election-related criminal prosecutions. In the original version, the Attorney General (AG) could only step in to prosecute a case if a law enforcement agency submitted a probable cause report to both the local prosecutor and the AG, and if six months passed without the local prosecutor initiating proceedings. This created a limited and conditional form of concurrent jurisdiction, preserving local prosecutorial discretion and providing a clear timeline-based trigger for AG involvement.

By contrast, the Committee Substitute eliminates this six-month waiting period and instead grants the AG immediate, mandatory authority to prosecute election offenses as soon as a probable cause report is submitted. It mandates that the AG “shall” represent the state in such prosecutions, effectively making the AG the default prosecutor in all election-related criminal matters. This shift significantly reduces the role of locally elected district and county attorneys, concentrating prosecutorial discretion in a statewide executive office and removing the requirement of local inaction as a precondition for AG involvement.

The substitute bill also strengthens procedural controls in favor of the Attorney General’s office. Whereas the filed bill merely required that law enforcement agencies send a copy of the probable cause report to the AG, the substitute requires that all such reports be submitted directly to the AG, along with any additional investigative information upon request. These changes elevate the AG’s role from a backup option to the lead prosecutor in election law cases, marking a profound structural shift in how election crimes are pursued in Texas.

In sum, the substitute version of SB 11 transforms the bill from a targeted intervention mechanism into a full-scale centralization of election-related criminal prosecution. It removes procedural barriers, overrides local prosecutorial autonomy, and sets a new precedent for the Attorney General’s active role in criminal enforcement of state election laws.

Author (1)

Bryan Hughes

Co-Author (10)

Donna Campbell Brent Hagenbuch Bob Hall Adam Hinojosa Phil King Lois Kolkhorst Mayes Middleton Tan Parker Charles Schwertner Kevin Sparks

Contact the Author

Sen. Bryan Hughes

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0101

Capitol Office:

CAP 3E8

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 11 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The analysis assumes that any costs incurred by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) in assuming prosecutorial responsibility for election-related offenses could be absorbed within the agency’s existing resources.

This projection suggests that the OAG already has the staff, infrastructure, or flexibility in its budget to manage the additional caseload without requiring a supplemental appropriation. However, in practice, expanding jurisdiction and taking on full prosecutorial duties statewide, particularly in a complex and politically sensitive area like election law. may eventually increase workloads and resource demands within the OAG's Criminal Prosecutions Division. The fiscal note does not estimate potential long-term staffing or litigation costs that could arise from this structural change.

For local governments, the bill is similarly expected to have no significant fiscal impact. While the bill shifts investigative collaboration and prosecution away from local district and county attorneys, it does not impose any new mandates or costs on them beyond sharing case-related information upon request. This indicates that any administrative burden from coordinating with the AG’s office is considered minimal and manageable within current operations. Overall, the fiscal impact analysis reflects a short-term budget-neutral view, though future resource needs may evolve based on implementation.

Vote Recommendation Notes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Committee Vote Information

Senate Committee on State Affairs: 10Y/1N

Related Legislation

HB 85 (Similar To)

View Bill Text and Status