According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3745 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state budget. According to the Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) would be granted authority to issue emergency awards for financial losses to claimants associated with deceased victims of crimes that occurred during declared states of emergency. While this could increase the frequency or volume of emergency compensation payments in specific, extraordinary circumstances, the fiscal note indicates that the OAG would be able to manage any associated costs within its existing resources and appropriations.

The Crime Victims’ Compensation (CVC) program, which is funded primarily through court costs and fees rather than general revenue, already includes mechanisms for emergency awards. This bill would only broaden eligibility under rare, high-impact scenarios such as natural disasters or mass violence events. Given the specificity of the conditions under which the expanded authority would apply, the expected financial burden is minimal.

Furthermore, no significant fiscal implications are anticipated for local governments. The bill does not impose new mandates or responsibilities on counties or municipalities and does not alter local revenue streams or administrative operations. Therefore, the fiscal impact of HB 3745 is deemed negligible at both the state and local levels.

HB 3745 proposes to expand the Attorney General’s authority to issue emergency financial compensation to claimants in cases involving a deceased victim during a declared state of emergency. The intent is to accelerate support to families suffering economic hardship as a result of violent crime, particularly under extraordinary circumstances such as natural disasters or large-scale public crises. While this objective is compassionate and well-meaning, the mechanisms in the bill raise serious structural and legal concerns, and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3745 unless amended as described below.

First and foremost, the bill grants the Attorney General broad discretion to bypass critical statutory limitations in the Crime Victims’ Compensation (CVC) program. It removes the requirement that emergency awards only be granted when a final award appears likely, and it also waives repayment conditions for awards that exceed eventual determinations. These changes may sound minor, but in practice, they strip away two core safeguards that protect the integrity and fairness of the CVC process. Without clear standards or procedural guardrails, the state risks issuing taxpayer-backed payments without adequate review, consistency, or justification.

Secondly, the bill contains no provisions for oversight, auditing, or public reporting related to the expanded emergency award authority. Given the discretionary nature of these awards and their distribution during states of emergency—when processes may already be under strain—transparency becomes even more critical. The absence of oversight raises legitimate concerns about potential misuse, inequitable application, or political influence. This lack of accountability undermines confidence in the program and opens the door to future statutory exceptions that may erode uniform standards.

A third concern is fiscal uncertainty. Although the Legislative Budget Board’s fiscal note concludes that additional costs could be absorbed by existing CVC resources, that projection assumes limited use. In a large-scale emergency—such as a mass shooting or hurricane with many casualties—the number of qualifying claims could rise dramatically. Without fiscal caps or prioritization rules, the program’s resources could be depleted, potentially impacting compensation for future victims and destabilizing an otherwise well-managed fund.

Additionally, from a constitutional and governance perspective, HB 3745 risks undermining the legislature’s role in setting clear parameters for executive action. It expands executive discretion during emergencies without requiring legislative consultation, sunset clauses, or defined limits. This raises constitutional questions about balance of powers, especially in light of increased scrutiny over emergency-related executive actions in recent years.

In summary, HB 3745, while aiming to support grieving families in times of crisis, creates a problematic shift in how emergency awards are governed. Its current form weakens existing protections without replacing them with appropriate oversight, fiscal restraint, or legal clarity. HB 3745 should be amended to (1) reinstate or narrow eligibility criteria, (2) include mandatory reporting and audits of emergency awards, and (3) add language to limit or review the Attorney General’s use of this authority during emergencies. Without these amendments, the bill represents a meaningful but flawed departure from sound statutory governance. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO; Amend on HB 3745.

• Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual liberty by aiming to reduce procedural delays for survivors of deceased crime victims during extraordinary events. It provides more immediate access to emergency financial relief, which may help families maintain housing, afford funerals, or meet basic needs in the aftermath of tragedy. By reducing bureaucratic barriers in times of acute hardship, the bill reflects a limited but real support for individual dignity and relief from undue hardship. However, the benefits are limited to a very specific group—claimants related to deceased victims during states of emergency—and are subject to the discretion of the Attorney General, not guaranteed as a right. This limits the strength of its contribution to liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill neither encourages nor discourages personal responsibility in a significant way. It does not alter how individuals are held accountable under the law or shift burdens in a way that diminishes personal autonomy. However, by removing repayment requirements and loosening eligibility thresholds without adequate review, it could be perceived as undermining fiscal accountability—particularly if emergency funds are distributed without clear justification. Still, this effect is indirect and does not significantly impact personal responsibility as a principle.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not interfere with or support free markets, competition, or private enterprise. It pertains exclusively to a state-administered compensation fund and does not regulate or affect business activity, economic liberty, or private-sector dynamics. As such, it is neutral with respect to free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not implicate private property rights. It neither enhances nor restricts the ability of individuals to own, use, or dispose of property. It also does not create or expand government authority to seize or interfere with property, either directly or through regulation. Therefore, the principle of private property rights is unaffected.
• Limited Government: This is the most clearly implicated principle. The bill expands executive discretion by allowing the Attorney General to bypass key legal thresholds when issuing emergency awards. It removes procedural checks—such as requiring a final award to be likely before issuing emergency funds—and waives repayment requirements if awards exceed final determinations. Importantly, it does so without inserting new guardrails like oversight reporting, fiscal caps, or sunset provisions. While the bill does not create a new agency or program, it does increase the scope of existing authority in a way that reduces legislative control and transparency. This undermines limited government by allowing more unchecked executive action, particularly during emergencies when government powers are already heightened. For lawmakers concerned with concentrated power or the erosion of statutory limits, this represents a clear point of tension with the principle of limited government.