According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1475 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill requires courts to notify the Texas Attorney General (AG) before holding a hearing on a temporary restraining order (TRO) under the Election Code. The LBB assumes that any administrative costs related to this requirement can be absorbed within existing resources at the Office of Court Administration and the Attorney General’s Office.

Additionally, local governments are not expected to incur significant costs due to this legislation. Since the bill does not mandate additional hearings or legal proceedings, but rather a notification requirement, no major operational expenses are anticipated at the county or municipal level. The Office of Court Administration and the Attorney General’s Office have been identified as the primary state agencies affected, but they are expected to handle the implementation within their current budgets.

HB 1475 proposes a procedural change in election-related litigation by requiring courts to notify the Texas Attorney General (AG) before holding a hearing on temporary restraining orders (TROs) sought under the Election Code. This measure stems from a 2022 Harris County case, where a court extended polling hours via a TRO without notifying the AG, even though the election involved state and federal offices.

The bill does not impose direct restrictions on election litigation but adds a procedural step that could delay urgent legal relief in election-related disputes. While ensuring the AG’s awareness of election-related legal proceedings could promote consistency and oversight, it also risks interfering with judicial discretion and slowing emergency rulings. The lack of a strict deadline or enforcement mechanism raises concerns about potential delays in time-sensitive cases.

Given these implications, though Texas Policy Research recommends lawmakers vote YES on HB 1475, the bill should be amended to clarify how courts should notify the AG and define an explicit timeframe for notification. These adjustments would balance election integrity, judicial efficiency, and government oversight, making the bill more functional without unduly delaying election-related legal remedies.

• Individual Liberty: The bill introduces a procedural requirement that courts notify the Texas Attorney General before holding a hearing on a temporary restraining order under the Election Code. While it does not bar individuals from seeking judicial relief, the added step could delay or discourage timely intervention in election-related disputes. This has the potential to infringe on individuals’ ability to quickly assert their rights, especially in fast-moving electoral situations. The principle of individual liberty—protecting the right to freely act and seek redress—is weakened if judicial access is slowed or politicized.
• Personal Responsibility: This bill does not directly impact personal responsibility, as it does not change the duties, liabilities, or freedoms of individuals or private actors. It is a procedural directive aimed at courts, not at the public. Therefore, there is no measurable effect on the liberty principle that emphasizes self-governance, accountability, or decision-making by individuals. The bill neither promotes nor undermines this value.
• Free Enterprise: The bill is unrelated to commerce or business regulation and does not affect the marketplace or the ability of individuals to freely engage in economic activities. It strictly pertains to the administration of election-related court proceedings. Since it introduces no burdens, restrictions, or benefits to economic actors or enterprises, it is neutral with respect to the free enterprise principle.
• Private Property Rights: There are no provisions in this bill that address ownership, use, or transfer of property, nor does it create any new mechanisms for government encroachment on property. As such, the bill does not affect the principle of private property rights. The legislation is confined to judicial procedures related to elections and therefore has no overlap with the protections associated with land, assets, or ownership.
• Limited Government: The most significant impact of the bill is on the principle of limited government. By requiring courts to notify the Attorney General—a member of the executive branch—before taking certain judicial actions, the bill increases centralized oversight over the judiciary in a specific class of cases. This represents a shift of power toward the executive and away from the courts, which could compromise judicial independence and efficiency. The bill offers no checks on how the AG uses the information, potentially inviting politicization of what should be impartial legal processes. It effectively grows government influence in election-related matters, in conflict with the principle of a restrained and decentralized state.

• SB 509 (Same As)