According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 413 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill, which limits the pretrial detention period for defendants to no longer than the maximum sentence they could receive if convicted, is not projected to cause major shifts in state correctional populations or place additional demands on state correctional resources.

However, the bill could yield meaningful cost savings at the local level. County governments—responsible for housing most pretrial detainees—may benefit from reduced jail populations as a result of the mandated release of certain low-level offenders once they have been detained for the maximum potential sentence. These savings could include reduced expenditures on jail operations, food, healthcare, and administrative overhead. While the exact magnitude of the savings is not quantified, the Legislative Budget Board acknowledges the potential for positive fiscal impact on local jurisdictions.

State agencies involved in the judicial or correctional system, including the Office of Court Administration and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, do not anticipate any material budgetary changes as a result of implementing this legislation. Overall, HB 413 is fiscally neutral for the state and fiscally beneficial for counties.

HB 413 earns a clear vote recommendation of YES based on its direct alignment with constitutional protections, its advancement of individual liberty, and its fiscal responsibility. As outlined in the bill analysis, the core motivation behind the legislation is to correct an imbalance in Texas’ criminal justice system, where individuals may be held in pretrial detention for durations longer than the maximum sentence associated with their alleged offense. This practice undermines the presumption of innocence and raises concerns under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, particularly regarding due process and protection against excessive punishment.

HB 413 reinforces the principle that the government cannot impose de facto punishment on an unconvicted individual through prolonged incarceration. By amending the Code of Criminal Procedure to require the release of a defendant once the maximum potential sentence—adjusted for credit for time served—is met, the bill ensures that pretrial detention does not serve as an unjust substitute for trial and sentencing. The legislation also provides appropriate exceptions, such as for defendants undergoing mental competency evaluations, which ensures it remains sensitive to public safety and judicial process considerations.

From a fiscal standpoint, the bill is prudent. It imposes no significant cost on the state and could reduce county jail populations, thereby saving local governments money otherwise spent on unnecessarily housing defendants. Furthermore, by encouraging timely case processing and reducing coercive plea pressures, the bill supports a more equitable and efficient justice system overall.

In short, HB 413 protects constitutional rights, limits government overreach, and saves taxpayer resources—making it a strong candidate for support under each of the five liberty principles. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 413.

• Individual Liberty: The bill protects a person’s right to not be punished before they are convicted of a crime. By preventing defendants from being jailed longer than the maximum sentence they could receive, it upholds the constitutional principle of being “innocent until proven guilty.” It ensures people are not subjected to de facto punishment simply because they are awaiting trial, often due to an inability to afford bail.
• Personal Responsibility: HB 413 places pressure on the criminal justice system—law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts—to act swiftly and efficiently. It demands that the state take responsibility for timely prosecution rather than allowing jail time to become a substitute for formal conviction. It also encourages defendants to take responsibility for showing up in court without being coerced by extended pretrial detention.
• Free Enterprise: While not directly related to markets or business, the bill indirectly supports free enterprise by reducing the economic harm inflicted on individuals held in jail who may lose jobs or housing while awaiting trial. Ensuring people can maintain their livelihood during pretrial periods reinforces their ability to participate in and contribute to the economy.
• Private Property Rights: Though the bill does not deal directly with property, it affirms the broader concept that a person’s liberty—their ability to use their time and body freely—is a fundamental part of what private rights entail. By limiting unjust detention, the bill reinforces protection against state interference in personal autonomy.
• Limited Government: This bill sets clear boundaries on how long the government can detain someone who has not been convicted. It acts as a check against excessive state power and arbitrary pretrial punishment. Limiting government detention to no more than the potential sentence ensures that the justice system doesn’t use jail as a tool of coercion or punishment without due process.