According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1748 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The analysis assumes that any administrative costs associated with implementing the bill's provisions—specifically, the appointment of non-certified spoken language interpreters under limited circumstances—can be absorbed using existing resources within the judiciary and related state agencies.

The bill is also not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact on units of local government. This suggests that courts at the county or municipal level, which may benefit from the flexibility provided in the bill, are likely already equipped to handle such interpreter appointments without incurring additional budgetary burdens. This could be due to the discretionary nature of the appointments or the fact that Class C misdemeanor proceedings (to which the bill applies) tend to be lower-cost and more administratively streamlined.

In practical terms, the bill may even produce some marginal cost savings by allowing courts to appoint qualified, non-certified interpreters in situations where certified interpreters are either unavailable or prohibitively expensive due to travel or scarcity, particularly in rural or less populous counties. However, these potential savings were not formally quantified in the fiscal note and are likely to vary by jurisdiction.

HB 1748 reflects a measured and pragmatic response to interpreter shortages in Texas courts. The committee substitute clarifies that the use of non-certified or non-licensed spoken language interpreters is only permissible in justice, municipal, or municipal courts of record when they are conducting Class C misdemeanor cases without a jury. This is a targeted, minimal-risk category of proceedings, typically involving relatively minor offenses such as traffic violations. This scope adjustment from the original bill enhances the bill’s alignment with due process principles while addressing administrative constraints in the judicial system​.

The bill emerges from the practical reality that smaller courts, especially in mid-sized and rural counties, often struggle to find certified interpreters, particularly for languages other than Spanish. Although the Office of Court Administration provides remote interpretation services, demand frequently exceeds supply, forcing prioritization of higher-level courts. This bill seeks to alleviate that pressure by providing more flexibility to local courts, while still maintaining safeguards through a population threshold (50,000 or more) and case-type limitation.

Critically, the fiscal analysis confirms there are no significant financial implications for either the state or local governments, as any operational adjustments can be managed within existing resources. Moreover, the bill does not expand criminal penalties, alter parole eligibility, or create new offenses, making it non-controversial from a criminal justice impact perspective.

From a liberty principle standpoint, HB 1748 promotes Individual Liberty and Limited Government by ensuring that defendants who speak less common languages are not denied a fair hearing due to bureaucratic inflexibility or resource limitations. It preserves Personal Responsibility by requiring courts to document interpreter unavailability and does not eliminate the expectation of interpretive competence. By improving access to justice without expanding state power or imposing costs, the bill upholds foundational values and, as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 1748.

• Individual Liberty: This bill supports individual liberty by ensuring that people who speak less common languages aren’t unfairly denied the ability to understand court proceedings. By allowing courts to use qualified, non-certified interpreters when certified ones are unavailable, the bill protects a person's right to a fair hearing, particularly important for non-English speakers facing legal consequences, even in minor cases.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill maintains court responsibility in selecting interpreters. Judges must still make a factual finding that no certified interpreter is available within 75 miles. This preserves a duty of due diligence and ensures the exceptions aren’t abused. It empowers courts to make thoughtful, case-specific decisions rather than forcing them into delays or ineffective communication due to rigid rules.
• Free Enterprise: By opening interpreter roles (in a limited way) to qualified individuals who may not hold a state certification, the bill fosters a more open market for language services. This can create opportunities for bilingual individuals, especially in rural or underserved areas, and can drive local competition without compromising essential legal standards.
• Private Property Rights: While not directly related to property rights, fair access to court proceedings is foundational to resolving disputes that may involve contracts, housing, or fines. In that broader context, ensuring individuals can understand and participate in proceedings helps preserve the integrity of outcomes that affect property and civil rights.
• Limited Government: Rather than expanding regulation, the bill loosens an existing mandate by allowing exceptions to the interpreter certification requirement in narrowly defined circumstances. It grants more discretion to local courts without growing the size of government or imposing new layers of oversight. It respects local autonomy and conserves public resources.

• SB 303 (Same As)