According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), no significant fiscal implication to the state is anticipated as a result of HB 3009. The LBB assumes that any costs associated with implementing the bill, primarily the expansion of the Department of Public Safety's computerized central database to include additional qualifying offenders and related information, can be absorbed using the department's existing resources.

The fiscal note also concludes that no significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated. Because the bill's implementation responsibilities fall primarily on the Department of Public Safety and are expected to be managed within current agency resources, the legislation is not expected to impose meaningful costs on counties, municipalities, or other local governmental entities.

HB 3009 seeks to improve public safety by expanding the Department of Public Safety's computerized central database of repeat violent offenders to include individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States and who have been convicted on two or more occasions of specified violent offenses. According to the committee bill analysis, the legislation does not create new criminal offenses, increase criminal penalties, affect community supervision or parole eligibility, or grant additional rulemaking authority. The LBB also concludes that the bill has no significant fiscal impact on state or local government and can be implemented using existing agency resources.

The bill's principal liberty concern is not its fiscal impact or regulatory burden, but its incremental expansion of state authority. HB 3009 broadens the scope of an existing government database by requiring DPS to collect and maintain additional information, including the last known location of certain offenders, and by creating a new category of individuals whose inclusion depends in part on an administrative determination of immigration status. While this represents an expansion of government recordkeeping, it does so within an existing public safety framework rather than by creating a new program or granting broad discretionary powers. The legislation does not impose new compliance obligations on private individuals or businesses, nor does it materially increase taxpayer exposure.

Accordingly, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 3009 while also strongly recommending amendments to strengthen the bill to ensure the expanded database authority remains narrowly tailored and subject to meaningful legislative oversight.

Recommended amendments include establishing a sunset provision requiring legislative reauthorization of the expanded database authority, requiring periodic reporting to the Legislature demonstrating the database's effectiveness and continued necessity, limiting the retention and dissemination of additional location information, requiring periodic audits for accuracy and compliance with statutory requirements, and clarifying the standards governing inclusion in the database to ensure objective and consistent application. These amendments would preserve the bill's public safety objectives while reducing the risk of unnecessary growth in state information-gathering authority and reinforcing appropriate legislative oversight.

• Individual Liberty: The bill expands the state's collection and retention of personal information by enlarging an existing DPS database and requiring the inclusion of additional identifying information, including last known location when available. Although it applies only to repeat violent offenders who meet specified criteria, it nevertheless increases government information-gathering authority.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill targets individuals with multiple convictions for violent offenses rather than creating new government services or shifting responsibility from individuals to the state. It reinforces accountability for repeat violent criminal conduct without expanding entitlement programs or reducing personal responsibility.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not regulate businesses, impose licensing requirements, affect labor markets, or alter competitive conditions. It has no meaningful impact on private enterprise or economic activity.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect the ownership, use, transfer, or regulation of private property. It neither expands nor restricts property rights.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the scope of an existing government program by broadening the population included in a state-maintained database and requiring the collection of additional information. However, it does not create a new agency, authorize additional rulemaking, or require significant new expenditures. The expansion is relatively narrow but lacks structural safeguards such as a sunset provision, legislative reporting, or independent oversight.