According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 4075 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state government. The fiscal note assumes that any additional administrative responsibilities associated with processing change-of-venue motions and judicial venue determinations can be absorbed within existing agency resources and would not require additional appropriations or staffing.

The LBB also determined that the bill is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on units of local government. Although the bill establishes a new procedure for handling venue changes in certain criminal prosecutions involving peace officers, the anticipated workload and associated costs for local courts and counties are expected to be minimal and manageable within existing budgets.

The fiscal analysis is based on information provided by the Office of Court Administration and concludes that implementation of the bill would not result in significant new costs for either the state or local governments.

HB 4075 seeks to address concerns that peace officers charged with offenses allegedly committed while performing their official duties may face difficulty obtaining an impartial jury in the communities where they served. To accomplish this, the bill establishes a separate statutory venue-change process available only to current and former peace officers, allowing qualifying defendants to seek transfer of their criminal cases through a process involving the parties and the presiding judge of the judicial district.

Although the bill does not create a new agency, expand a regulatory program, or impose significant costs on taxpayers, it nevertheless expands state law by creating a new procedural privilege that applies only to one class of defendants. Existing Texas law already provides mechanisms for defendants to seek a change of venue when an impartial trial cannot be obtained. Rather than reforming those standards generally, the bill creates an occupation-specific exception, treating peace officers differently from all other Texans accused of criminal offenses.

The bill also does not increase the regulatory burden on individuals or businesses, and the Legislative Budget Board determined that implementation would have no significant fiscal impact on state or local government. However, the principal concern is one of legal precedent rather than cost. Creating specialized procedural rights based on occupation departs from the principle of equal application of the law and could invite future requests for similar treatment by other professions. From a limited-government perspective, changes to criminal procedure should generally apply uniformly unless a compelling constitutional necessity justifies differential treatment.

Because the bill creates a profession-specific procedural benefit without demonstrating that existing venue statutes are inadequate for all defendants, it represents an unnecessary expansion of statutory exceptions and undermines the principle that the law should apply equally to every person. For those reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 4075.

• Individual Liberty: The bill creates a special procedural right that is available only to current and former peace officers, rather than applying equally to all defendants. Although it does not directly restrict anyone's freedoms or expand criminal penalties, it departs from the principle of equal treatment under the law by granting one occupational class a unique statutory benefit.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill neither expands nor diminishes individual responsibility for criminal conduct. It does not alter criminal liability, defenses, penalties, or accountability; it only changes the procedure for determining the venue in which certain cases are tried.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has no meaningful effect on private markets, competition, business operations, licensing, or economic regulation. It neither imposes new burdens on businesses nor creates market distortions.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect the ownership, use, regulation, or disposition of private property, nor does it create any new authority affecting real or personal property rights.
• Limited Government: While the bill does not create a new agency, expand bureaucracy, or require significant public expenditures, it enlarges the statutory framework governing criminal procedure by creating a new occupation-specific venue process. Rather than relying on the existing venue statutes that apply uniformly to all defendants, it establishes a new legal exception for a particular class of individuals. From a limited-government perspective, this represents an unnecessary expansion of statutory authority and sets a precedent for creating additional profession-specific legal privileges in the future.

• SB 2229 (Similar To)