According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1871 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill proposes enhancing the criminal penalty for the attempted capital murder of a peace officer to a first-degree felony punishable by 25 to 99 years or life imprisonment. It also eliminates eligibility for community supervision (probation), parole, and mandatory supervision for those convicted under the new provision.

The fiscal analysis assumes that any increase in state correctional populations or demand for state prison resources resulting from longer prison terms would be minimal. This presumes that the number of individuals prosecuted and convicted for this specific offense is relatively small, and therefore, the changes would not produce a substantial shift in incarceration rates or associated state expenditures.

Similarly, the bill is not anticipated to impose a significant fiscal burden on local governments. Any added costs related to enforcement, prosecution, or pretrial detention at the county level are expected to be negligible. Overall, HB 1871’s fiscal impact is considered manageable within existing state and local criminal justice budgets.

HB 1871 provides a targeted and principled adjustment to Texas criminal law by increasing the penalty for the attempted capital murder of a peace officer. Specifically, it raises the punishment to a first-degree felony with a mandatory minimum of 25 years and makes individuals convicted under this offense ineligible for parole or mandatory supervision. This change responds to a gap in current law, where attempted capital murder — even against a peace officer — is treated equivalently to aggravated assault, despite the significantly higher burden of proof and severity of the criminal intent involved.

While there are legitimate concerns regarding mandatory minimum sentencing and the designation of law enforcement officers as a legally protected class, this bill can be justified within a liberty-minded framework due to its narrow scope and public safety rationale. The mandatory minimum applies only in cases where an individual has knowingly and deliberately attempted to kill a peace officer engaged in official duties — a circumstance that justifies heightened penalties given the potential to destabilize public order and undermine the rule of law. This is not a broad expansion of mandatory minimums, but rather a precise legal response to a rare and extreme form of criminal violence.

Concerns about expanding the government’s reach are also mitigated here. HB 1871 does not create new regulatory bodies, programs, or oversight mechanisms. It operates within existing law enforcement, judicial, and correctional systems. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the bill is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state or local governments, nor will it result in meaningful changes to correctional population levels. This confirms that the bill does not impose a new burden on taxpayers or expand the size or scope of government in any measurable way.

Additionally, the bill avoids overreach by including a prospective-only clause, ensuring it applies only to offenses committed on or after its effective date. It does not alter penalties for past conduct or retroactively increase sentencing, preserving due process protections and avoiding potential constitutional issues.

In sum, HB 1871 reflects a carefully constrained use of state power in defense of peace officers and the broader public. Though it involves a mandatory minimum, the bill is not inconsistent with a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, and fiscal restraint. The conduct it targets is rare, egregious, and clearly distinguishable from lower-level offenses. Given these factors, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 1871.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not infringe upon the general rights of individuals to live freely or make personal choices without government interference. Instead, it targets a specific and extreme act: the attempted capital murder of a peace officer. Protecting peace officers from lethal violence helps preserve public order, which is a necessary condition for the exercise of individual liberty in society. By holding accountable those who try to take another life, particularly a person tasked with upholding the rule of law, this bill reinforces, rather than restricts, the broader freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill enhances the expectation that individuals be held fully accountable for serious criminal conduct. Attempting to kill a peace officer is one of the gravest crimes in the Penal Code, and the bill ensures that it is punished accordingly, with a significant minimum sentence and no opportunity for early release. This reinforces the principle that freedom comes with consequences when one violates the rights and safety of others. The bill promotes a culture where people are expected to take responsibility for their actions, particularly when they endanger public servants and the rule of law.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has no effect on businesses, markets, or economic regulation. It does not impose any compliance costs, create new rules for commercial actors, or regulate trade. Therefore, it neither supports nor hinders the principle of free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not address or affect property rights. It is strictly focused on the criminal justice system and sentencing for attempted capital murder. It does not expand eminent domain, impact zoning, or alter civil liability frameworks.
• Limited Government: While the bill increases a criminal penalty and removes parole eligibility, it does so in a tightly limited context. It does not create new categories of crime, expand enforcement authority, or grow the size of government. The increased punishment is confined to an already-existing offense (attempted capital murder of a peace officer) and applies only to a narrow set of cases. Some may argue that mandatory minimums represent a philosophical expansion of state power, but in this case, the law targets an act so severe—and so closely tied to maintaining lawful order—that the tradeoff is justified. The bill also avoids retroactive application and does not expand surveillance or prosecutorial discretion, which helps keep government power in check.

• SB 1272 (Same As)