According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 654 is not anticipated to have any significant fiscal implications to the State of Texas. The analysis assumes that any administrative or operational costs associated with implementing the bill's provisions, such as courts processing deferral requests or managing records, could be absorbed within existing resources. Therefore, the bill does not require additional state appropriations or staffing changes.

Similarly, the bill is not expected to impose a significant financial burden on local governments. Although local courts may be involved in processing deferral agreements, tracking compliance, and handling related fees, these responsibilities are considered minor enough to be managed within current operations. The optional reimbursement fees authorized by the bill (up to $10 each for the court and course provider) could, in fact, provide a small amount of offsetting revenue to help cover administrative handling.

In short, the fiscal impact of HB 654 is considered minimal at both the state and local levels. The design of the bill allows the judiciary and course providers to recover limited costs directly from participants while safeguarding indigent defendants from financial penalties. This approach minimizes the likelihood of creating unfunded mandates or new budgetary pressures.

HB 654, known as the “Asp-Morgan Act,” offers a narrowly crafted, restorative policy solution for minor, good-faith violations of deer hunting regulations—specifically those involving a one-inch or less discrepancy in antler spread measurements. The bill establishes a pathway for courts to defer and ultimately dismiss criminal charges against hunters who self-report the violation, meet strict eligibility criteria, and complete a hunter education course. This framework strengthens the principles of personal responsibility and proportional enforcement without undermining conservation laws.

Importantly, the bill does not grow the size or scope of government. It utilizes existing judicial processes and hunter education infrastructure without creating new agencies, expanding regulatory reach, or increasing enforcement powers. Furthermore, there is no significant fiscal impact to the state or local governments, as confirmed by the Legislative Budget Board. Any minor administrative costs can be recovered through modest, optional reimbursement fees (capped at $10), which are waived for indigent defendants, ensuring the policy remains equitable and fiscally neutral.

HB 654 does not increase the regulatory burden on individuals or businesses. Instead, it provides relief from criminal liability for a specific subset of unintentional violations while upholding wildlife management standards. It avoids any new mandates or restrictions on hunters, landowners, or the hunting industry. In doing so, it reflects a well-balanced approach that prioritizes limited government, judicial discretion, and educational remediation over punitive enforcement.

The bill addresses a real-world enforcement gap, enhances fairness, and encourages ethical behavior in the field—all without expanding government or imposing new costs. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 654.

• Individual Liberty: The bill provides an off-ramp from criminal conviction for individuals who make a technical, good-faith mistake in measuring deer antlers. It respects the fact that such violations may not reflect willful misconduct and instead allows self-reporting hunters to avoid a lasting criminal record by completing a hunter education course. This supports individual liberty by limiting the long-term legal consequences of minor infractions, particularly when the individual demonstrates accountability.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill requires the defendant to plead guilty or no contest, self-report the violation on-site to a game warden, and complete a hunter education course. These conditions reinforce the concept of owning one’s actions, even if the mistake was unintentional. The bill promotes learning and corrective behavior over punishment, aligning well with the idea that individuals should take responsibility for their actions without disproportionate state intervention.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not impact businesses, hunting guides, or landowners. It applies strictly to individuals who violate hunting regulations under specific conditions and does not alter any aspect of market behavior, trade, or licensing for businesses involved in the outdoor or hunting industry.
• Private Property Rights: The legislation does not expand or restrict property owners' rights regarding land use, hunting access, or game management. It is focused solely on the post-violation treatment of certain individual hunters who make minor measurement errors.
• Limited Government: Rather than increasing penalties, enforcement authority, or bureaucracy, the bill reduces government overreach in minor, technical hunting violations. It allows courts to exercise discretion, avoids unnecessary criminal prosecutions, and saves judicial and prosecutorial resources. The bill achieves compliance through education, not expanded regulation, showing how government can correct behavior without expanding its footprint.