According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1732 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR), the agency responsible for enforcing the changes proposed by the bill, is anticipated to be able to implement the expanded regulatory and enforcement responsibilities using its current staff and financial resources. As a result, no additional appropriations or budget adjustments are projected to be necessary at the state level.

The bill directs TDLR to revoke licenses of individuals convicted of specific offenses and bars others from licensure altogether, but these actions are administrative in nature and fall within the department's existing enforcement framework. While there may be some minimal administrative costs associated with updating agency rules and processing additional revocations, these are considered absorbable within the agency’s current operations.

Likewise, the bill does not create any fiscal implications for local governments. There are no mandates for county or municipal governments to take action, nor are there any costs imposed upon local regulatory or judicial systems. Thus, implementation of HB 1732 is expected to be fiscally neutral for both state and local entities.

While the intention behind HB 1732 — to prevent individuals with serious sexual offense histories from working in professions with physical contact — is reasonable, the bill as currently written raises concerns around fairness, reintegration, and regulatory overreach. It creates a strict, inflexible disqualification regime without accounting for individual circumstances, rehabilitation efforts, or due process. Furthermore, its language leaves room for broad interpretation of what constitutes a “substantially similar offense” under other jurisdictions, potentially leading to inconsistent or overly punitive enforcement.

To achieve a better balance between public protection and fairness, the following amendments are recommended:

• Add a Rehabilitation-Based Appeals or Waiver Process: Permit individuals disqualified under this bill to petition for licensure after a defined rehabilitation period (e.g., 5–10 years without subsequent offenses), subject to review by TDLR.
• Clarify the Definition of "Substantially Similar Offenses": Provide clearer statutory guidance on how out-of-state or federal offenses are evaluated to avoid inconsistent or overly broad enforcement.
• Include a Sunset or Review Provision: Require a legislative or agency review of the bill’s impact after a set period (e.g., 5 years) to evaluate effectiveness and unintended consequences.
• Differentiate Between Types of Criminal Dispositions: Treat deferred adjudications and older non-violent offenses differently from recent or violent convictions to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach.
• Mandate Transparent Rulemaking by TDLR: Require the agency to publish implementation rules that clearly define its enforcement standards and allow public input on interpretation.

HB 1732 is rooted in a valid public safety concern but in its current form, it risks overly broad exclusion from employment without due consideration of rehabilitation or proportionality. By amending the bill to include flexibility, clarity, and accountability, lawmakers can better achieve the bill’s intent while upholding fairness and individual liberty. Until such amendments are adopted, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1732.

• Individual Liberty: The bill seeks to protect clients, particularly vulnerable individuals, from being exposed to practitioners with serious sexual offense histories. By removing those with convictions for sexual assault or related crimes from positions of physical contact, the bill protects the bodily autonomy and safety of the public, which are essential aspects of individual liberty. At the same time, the bill places a blanket prohibition on individuals with certain past offenses, including those who may have completed their sentences or received deferred adjudication, without offering a path to redemption. This can infringe on the liberty of reformed individuals by denying them the right to pursue lawful employment, even in cases where they no longer pose a threat. Without a waiver or appeals process, this undermines the principle that people should be free to rebuild their lives after paying their debt to society.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle that individuals must be accountable for their actions. By tying licensure eligibility to serious offenses like sexual assault or trafficking, it ensures that individuals who have demonstrated harmful behavior face clear consequences in regulated professions. This strengthens public trust in the licensure system and reinforces personal responsibility for one’s conduct, particularly in fields involving close physical contact.
• Free Enterprise: The bill restricts entry into the massage therapy market for a specific subset of individuals — those with qualifying criminal histories. While this is narrowly targeted, it does limit who can participate in the industry, which introduces a modest constraint on the free market principle of open competition. However, for the majority of practitioners and businesses, there is no direct interference or increased burden.
• Private Property Rights: There is no significant infringement on private property rights under this bill. Individuals or businesses who currently operate legally and without disqualifying offenses retain full control over their property and operations. The bill only affects licensure, not ownership or physical property.
• Limited Government: As written, the bill expands the state’s authority to permanently bar or revoke licenses based solely on criminal history, without flexibility for rehabilitation or individualized review. While it does not create a new bureaucracy, it extends the power of the state to regulate employment access in a manner that may exceed what is necessary for public safety, thus conflicting with limited government principles. If amended to include waiver or appeal mechanisms and sunset review provisions, the bill could better align with limited government values by adding accountability and procedural safeguards.