According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1495 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state of Texas. The bill mandates that personal information collected during the jury selection process—such as addresses, phone numbers, and identification details—be kept confidential, and provides limited exceptions for disclosure. Despite the administrative changes that may be needed to implement this new data privacy framework, the affected state agencies, particularly the Office of Court Administration (OCA), are expected to absorb any associated costs using existing resources.

At the local level, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated for counties or other units of local government. Jury operations and related court processes are already well-established, and the added confidentiality provisions do not necessitate substantial new infrastructure or personnel. Rather, the adjustments primarily involve modifications to data handling protocols and access permissions—changes that can typically be managed with procedural updates and staff training within current budgets.

In essence, HB 1495 offers privacy protections without imposing new financial burdens on state or local governments. Its implementation is designed to be minimally disruptive, leveraging existing court resources while ensuring compliance with heightened confidentiality standards.

HB 1495 is a clear and focused measure that advances individual privacy and reinforces public confidence in the judicial system. The bill responds to real-world concerns raised by a constituent in Val Verde County, who experienced intimidation after a defendant accessed their personal information collected during the jury selection process. The legislation is crafted to close this gap in current law by declaring that personal data collected about potential jurors, including home address, phone number, Social Security number, and other identifying details, is confidential, with limited exceptions allowed only upon court approval for good cause.

The bill’s approach aligns strongly with the principles of individual liberty and limited government. By safeguarding juror information from unauthorized access, it protects citizens from potential harassment or retaliation, which is essential to preserving the integrity of jury service and encouraging civic participation. Moreover, it respects the role of the judiciary in balancing transparency with security by providing a mechanism for disclosure only under judicial oversight. These limitations on data access reinforce the concept of a restrained, accountable government.

From a fiscal and administrative standpoint, HB 1495 has minimal impact on state and local governments, according to the Legislative Budget Board. It anticipates no significant new expenditures, as courts are expected to handle confidentiality measures within existing resources. In addition, the bill avoids creating new criminal penalties or regulatory burdens, focusing instead on procedural privacy safeguards.

In summary, HB 1495 is a narrowly tailored, constitutionally sound response to a legitimate concern. It enhances personal protections for jurors, supports due process, and does so without imposing material costs or expanding government authority, making it well-aligned with the five core liberty principles guiding this analysis. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 1495.

• Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual liberty by protecting jurors’ personal information from unauthorized disclosure. Jurors participate in the judicial process as a civic duty, not by choice, and the bill ensures that their privacy is respected throughout. This protection guards individuals against potential harassment, retaliation, or doxxing—real risks in an increasingly interconnected and digital society. By keeping this sensitive data confidential, the bill reinforces the idea that individuals should not be involuntarily exposed to danger or public scrutiny simply for participating in government processes.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill does not impose new responsibilities on individuals, nor does it incentivize or discourage responsible behavior directly. It primarily targets institutional practices, and while it may improve the safety environment for jurors, it doesn’t shift responsibility to or from citizens in a way that materially impacts this principle.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not affect the operations of private businesses or economic freedom. It creates no new market restrictions, taxes, or compliance obligations on the private sector. While the bill may support a more trustworthy legal environment—an indirect benefit to the enterprise—it does not materially intersect with business regulation.
• Private Property Rights: Although not dealing with land or physical property, the bill affirms the protection of personal information as a form of intangible property. By recognizing this data as private and requiring judicial approval for disclosure, the legislation affirms individuals’ control over their personal details, which is a core element of property rights in the digital age.
• Limited Government: The bill imposes limits on what the government—and its officers, such as courts and attorneys—can do with the personal information they collect. Rather than expanding government reach, it restricts it. This reinforces the notion that government powers must be narrowly tailored and checked, especially when dealing with sensitive personal data. The bill even includes a built-in safeguard allowing courts to authorize disclosure only with good cause, preserving judicial discretion within clearly defined bounds.

• SB 1928 (Same As)