According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 115 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill’s provisions, including expanded access to postconviction habeas corpus relief, adjustments to legal standards for reviewing scientific evidence, and the creation of a new procedural writ under Article 11.66, are assumed to be administrable within existing resources of the state’s judicial agencies. No new funding or structural overhauls are anticipated that would impose additional budgetary burdens.

Additionally, there is no significant fiscal implication expected for local governments. Although the bill may lead to an increase in postconviction filings and document production requests in district courts, these activities are considered manageable within current workloads and infrastructure. The Office of Court Administration and Texas Judicial Council, the primary agencies likely to be affected, have not projected the need for new staff or capital expenses to implement the bill’s provisions.

Overall, while HB 115 may incrementally increase judicial activity in the form of writ filings, scientific evidence evaluations, and limited pre-filing discovery proceedings, the legislative fiscal analysis finds these changes to be fiscally neutral for both state and local governments.

HB 115 strengthens due process protections in Texas’s postconviction justice system by modernizing and clarifying how courts should handle habeas corpus applications based on new or evolving scientific evidence. The bill lowers the evidentiary burden from a "preponderance of the evidence" to a “reasonable likelihood” that the new scientific information could have affected the conviction or sentence. It also ensures the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) must issue a written opinion when denying habeas claims related to scientific evidence, promoting greater transparency and accountability in appellate review.

The bill further expands judicial discretion by allowing the CCA to consider successive habeas applications that do not meet traditional procedural requirements if “justice requires” it. This provision is meant to safeguard against unjust outcomes in rare cases where procedural barriers might otherwise block meritorious claims. Additionally, the bill creates a narrowly tailored mechanism (Article 11.66) allowing attorneys to petition a district court to obtain relevant documents before filing a habeas application, improving access to essential information in complex postconviction cases.

These reforms substantially align with the principle of individual liberty by helping to prevent or correct wrongful convictions. The bill does not grow the size or scope of government, impose new regulatory burdens on individuals or businesses, or increase the tax burden on the public. According to the Legislative Budget Board, any fiscal impact on state or local governments is minimal and can be absorbed within existing resources. Moreover, the bill creates no new agencies, mandates, or enforcement mechanisms beyond existing judicial structures.

However, the bill would benefit from amendments to reinforce procedural integrity and safeguard against unintended judicial overreach. Specifically, the “justice requires” standard should be accompanied by a statutory requirement that courts issue written findings outlining the basis for granting exceptions to existing writ limitations. This would preserve transparency and consistency in how courts apply this broad discretionary power. Likewise, Article 11.66 could be refined to further limit discovery writs to government-held records directly relevant to a clearly stated claim and ensure timely notice and response procedures for the state.

In summary, HB 115 is a thoughtful and well-targeted effort to improve fairness in Texas’s postconviction process. It meaningfully supports liberty and access to justice while avoiding expansion of government power or cost to taxpayers. While it would be improved by amendments that increase transparency and clarify the boundaries of judicial discretion, these enhancements are not prerequisites for support. Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 115 but also consider amendments to strengthen the bill as described above.

• Individual Liberty: At its heart, this bill is about safeguarding the rights of individuals against wrongful conviction and punishment. It improves the ability of a convicted person to seek postconviction relief when new or better scientific evidence becomes available, an especially important safeguard in an era where forensic science is rapidly evolving and prior methods have sometimes proven unreliable. By lowering the evidentiary burden for relief from a “preponderance of the evidence” to a “reasonable likelihood,” the bill ensures courts can more effectively correct unjust outcomes. Additionally, the requirement that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issue written decisions when denying scientific-evidence-based claims improves transparency and respects the due process rights of applicants, contributing to a justice system that is more accountable and fair.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill maintains personal accountability for criminal conduct, as it does not absolve individuals of responsibility or reduce punishments across the board. Rather, it allows courts to reconsider convictions only when new scientific evidence casts doubt on the reliability of the original verdict or sentence. This is not about excusing criminal behavior; it’s about ensuring the state meets its burden to convict and sentence accurately and justly, using credible, up-to-date evidence.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not impose regulations on businesses, markets, or employers. Its application is strictly within the context of postconviction criminal proceedings, so there is no burden on economic activity or enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: There are no provisions in the bill that affect private property rights. The bill deals exclusively with judicial access and postconviction procedures.
• Limited Government: The bill does expand judicial discretion, particularly through provisions allowing courts to consider subsequent habeas applications that do not meet standard filing requirements if “justice requires.” While this increases flexibility, it could risk inconsistent or subjective application without clear standards. That said, it does not create new government programs, departments, or regulatory authority. Courts already have jurisdiction over habeas proceedings, and this bill merely updates how they exercise that authority in light of new scientific knowledge. With targeted amendments, such as requiring written findings when using discretionary authority under the “justice requires” standard and clarifying the scope of pre-writ discovery under Article 11.66, the bill can better preserve procedural discipline and reinforce the principle that government power must be carefully limited and well-justified.