According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1135 will have no significant fiscal implications for the state. The analysis assumes that any administrative or enforcement-related costs associated with implementing changes, specifically concerning temporary vehicle tags and the offense of tampering with governmental records, can be absorbed using existing resources within affected agencies.

The agencies consulted in the analysis include the Office of Court Administration, the Texas Judicial Council, and the Department of Public Safety. These entities are not expected to require additional funding or staffing to fulfill any new responsibilities or enhanced enforcement actions resulting from the bill. This indicates that the bill’s provisions align closely with existing operational capacities and statutory enforcement mechanisms.

Furthermore, the fiscal note reports no significant financial impact on local government units. This suggests that counties and municipalities, including local law enforcement or judicial entities, will not incur meaningful additional expenses or obligations in response to the bill’s implementation. The bill is structured to enhance legal clarity and enforceability rather than impose new regulatory burdens or unfunded mandates.

In sum, HB 1135 represents a policy refinement rather than a budgetary expansion. It addresses the enforcement and deterrence of document tampering related to temporary tags without increasing costs to state or local government operations.

HB 1135 (The Terrin Solbrig Act) seeks to address fraudulent use of temporary vehicle tags by modifying the offense of tampering with a governmental record. While the bill’s intent, to deter fraud and enhance public safety, is broadly understandable, its execution raises substantive concerns.

First, the bill risks contributing to the ongoing problem of overcriminalization. Texas law already provides tools to prosecute fraudulent behavior involving government records under Penal Code §37.10. HB 1135 offers no compelling evidence that existing laws are insufficient or that prosecutors lack the authority to act. Adding new statutory language without narrowing intent requirements or clarifying the scope of application opens the door to unnecessary and potentially excessive enforcement.

Second, the bill lacks the specificity and clarity required for responsible lawmaking. It does not clearly define what new conduct is criminalized or how enforcement practices will change. This vagueness undermines due process protections and leaves room for inconsistent or arbitrary application of the law, an outcome conservative and liberty-minded lawmakers consistently oppose.

Finally, the bill adds to statutory clutter without demonstrable necessity. While it bears a commemorative title, it functions primarily as symbolic legislation, absent public data, findings, or a clear legislative record justifying its creation. Good intentions are not sufficient grounds for new laws. Legislation must be narrowly tailored, evidence-driven, and constitutionally sound.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1135d. A NO vote affirms a commitment to criminal justice restraint, clarity in law, and a principled approach to government authority.

• Individual Liberty: Individual liberty includes the right to live free from arbitrary or excessive criminal prosecution. The bill appears to expand or reinforce criminal liability related to tampering with governmental records, but it does so without clear statutory language or limiting provisions. This ambiguity increases the risk that individuals, especially those unaware of the technicalities of vehicle tag regulations, could face prosecution for actions that are not clearly defined as fraudulent. Without narrowing the statute to require intent to defraud or other limiting language, the bill risks infringing on individual liberty by leaving too much discretion to law enforcement or prosecutors.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the notion that individuals should be accountable for engaging in fraudulent behavior. In this respect, it supports personal responsibility by affirming that tampering with official state-issued documents like temporary vehicle tags is unacceptable. However, true personal responsibility must also include protections for due process and the right to be judged based on clear, understandable laws. If the bill does not differentiate between malicious actors and those who are unknowingly misled (e.g., car buyers issued fake tags), it may ultimately punish individuals who acted in good faith.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill may deter fraudulent dealers or bad actors in the vehicle sales industry, it may also impose greater scrutiny or risk of liability on legitimate small businesses, especially used car dealerships, without offering procedural clarity. Any legal uncertainty introduced into a commercial transaction (e.g., selling a car with a state-issued tag) can chill activity or shift compliance burdens downstream. If temporary tag misuse is primarily the result of poor administrative controls or loopholes at the agency level, adding new criminal liabilities rather than streamlining oversight may burden the private sector unnecessarily.
• Private Property Rights: There is no direct impact on private property rights. However, improper or overly aggressive enforcement based on vague legal standards could lead to wrongful stops, seizures, or legal complications for lawful vehicle owners. A clearer statute might help preserve rights, but this bill lacks that clarity.
• Limited Government: The most concerning impact is on the principle of limited government. The bill proposes to adjust criminal law without presenting strong evidence of necessity or tailoring the law to ensure minimal intrusion. The absence of new rulemaking authority may seem innocuous, but vague or redundant criminal statutes can expand prosecutorial power in ways that circumvent constitutional restraints. A truly limited government uses criminal law sparingly, with precision, and only when other mechanisms have demonstrably failed. The bill does not meet that threshold.