HB 75 projects a negative impact of $4,191,340 on General Revenue-related funds through the biennium ending August 31, 2027. The bill does not appropriate funds directly, but it establishes a legal framework for potential appropriations to implement expanded bail procedures, judicial requirements, and oversight mechanisms. The bulk of the costs are attributed to expanding the Public Safety Reporting System (PSRS), integrating county jail and court management systems, and increasing judicial review procedures for bail determinations. The fiscal year 2026 incurs the highest cost ($3.8 million) due to one-time expenses associated with integrating approximately 600 jails and 453 district/county clerk offices into the PSRS. In subsequent years, the costs stabilize at approximately $394,000 annually to cover ongoing operational expenses and staffing.

The Office of Court Administration (OCA) will bear the administrative burden of overseeing bail decisions and charitable bail organizations, requiring two additional full-time employees (FTEs)—a Project Manager and a Grant Specialist—to facilitate system integration and compliance monitoring. The bill authorizes OCA to provide grants to counties for technology integration, but only if specifically funded by future legislative appropriations. Additionally, local governments may experience higher detention-related costs due to fewer defendants being released on bail, which could increase county jail populations. While the fiscal impact on state correctional facilities is expected to be minimal, counties may need to allocate additional resources for pretrial detention costs. The fiscal note concludes that certain costs related to expanded judicial processes and pretrial detention remain indeterminate.

HB 75 presents a well-intentioned effort to enhance public safety by tightening bail restrictions, increasing judicial oversight, and regulating charitable bail organizations. The bill’s expanded criminal history review and requirement for magistrates to enter written findings help ensure that courts have all relevant information when making pretrial decisions. Additionally, the shift of charitable bail organization oversight to the Office of Court Administration (OCA) aims to provide a uniform regulatory framework rather than relying on county-by-county enforcement. However, the bill’s broad restrictions on bail eligibility, particularly its expansion to include offenses against peace officers, could lead to over-detention of nonviolent or low-risk individuals. Furthermore, while allowing prosecutors to challenge insufficient bail decisions helps ensure accountability, prohibiting a defendant’s release until the appeal is resolved may lead to unnecessarily prolonged detention, particularly if judicial review processes become delayed.

To better balance public safety with individual liberty, several amendments are necessary. First, judicial discretion should be preserved by allowing magistrates to consider mitigating factors rather than imposing blanket restrictions on entire categories of defendants. Second, while charitable bail organizations should be transparent, requiring detailed monthly reports directly to the Office of Court Administration rather than local authorities could impose unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. A more reasonable approach would be to require reporting only when a defendant fails to appear in court or when bail amounts exceed a certain threshold.

Additionally, the bill’s provision allowing prosecutors to appeal bail decisions and hold defendants in custody pending appeal could lead to indefinite detention in cases where appeals are delayed. To prevent this, an amendment should impose a strict timeline requiring courts to resolve bail appeals within a specific number of days—perhaps no more than seven days—to prevent unnecessary pretrial incarceration. Lastly, while the expanded public safety report system provides valuable information to magistrates, it should not be used as an automatic disqualifier for bail without allowing defendants the opportunity to present counterarguments or demonstrate rehabilitation efforts. These amendments would better align HB 75 with principles of due process, individual liberty, and limited government, while still maintaining the bill’s core objective of protecting public safety. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES; Amend on HB 75.

• Individual Liberty: HB 75 introduces broader restrictions on who can be released on bail, particularly for individuals with past felony convictions, immigration detainers, or charges involving violence. While this is intended to protect the public, it also risks undermining the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of individual liberty. The bill’s provision allowing prosecutors to appeal bail decisions—keeping defendants in custody during appeals—could lead to prolonged pretrial detention without conviction. These changes may erode individual liberty for those not yet proven guilty, especially if the system delays resolution.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill emphasizes personal accountability by ensuring that prior criminal conduct—including failures to appear in court and conditions of prior release—is factored into bail decisions. It prevents release for individuals with repeated serious offenses, which upholds the principle that actions have consequences. Moreover, it increases oversight on charitable bail organizations, requiring them to track and report outcomes, reinforcing responsible behavior on both sides of the justice system.
• Free Enterprise: HB 75 places new and burdensome regulations on charitable bail organizations, limiting their operational flexibility. By transferring oversight from local sheriffs to the state-level Office of Court Administration and imposing monthly reporting mandates, the bill stifles nonprofit-driven alternatives to commercial bail bonds. These organizations often serve as private-sector safety valves for low-income defendants. The additional red tape may reduce the viability of such groups, constraining market-based approaches to pretrial liberty.
• Private Property Rights: While HB 75 does not directly address ownership or use of property, it has indirect implications for the financial autonomy of private organizations and donors. By restricting the ability of charitable bail organizations to act freely with donated funds and imposing administrative requirements, it limits how private assets may be used to support individual liberty. Still, the effect here is marginal and largely procedural.
• Limited Government: The bill increases the size and scope of state government’s role in the bail system, transferring regulatory powers to the Office of Court Administration and authorizing the agency to manage grants, monitor compliance, and direct reporting standards statewide. These changes reduce local discretion and judicial flexibility, moving Texas further from a decentralized justice model. While promoting consistency, it marks a step away from limited government principles by expanding bureaucratic control.

• SB 9 (Same As)
• SB 3073 (Similar To)