According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 917 is not expected to have any significant fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The implementation of the bill’s provisions—restricting current and former district or county attorneys from serving as counsel against the state in certain cases—would not require additional resources or result in measurable costs. It is anticipated that any administrative adjustments or enforcement related to these restrictions can be managed within existing agency budgets and staff capacity.

Similarly, the fiscal impact on local governments is projected to be negligible. Counties and district attorney offices already operate under established ethical guidelines and procedural rules, and the changes proposed by HB 917 do not introduce new reporting, oversight mechanisms, or enforcement burdens that would demand new local funding or infrastructure. Therefore, no additional financial or staffing needs are expected at the local level as a result of this legislation.

Overall, the bill is fiscally neutral and is structured to achieve its ethical objectives without imposing new costs on state or local government entities. This budget-friendly profile may help bolster its appeal across political lines, especially among lawmakers prioritizing limited government spending.

HB 917 proposes an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure that maintains ethical boundaries for current and former district and county attorneys, while introducing a narrowly tailored exception to serve the needs of the state’s child protection system. Specifically, the bill ensures that these attorneys may not represent clients against the state in any case, either during or after their public service, except when appointed as an attorney ad litem in child protection cases under Chapter 262 of the Family Code.

This exception is significant, particularly in rural areas where there are limited numbers of qualified attorneys available to serve as attorney ad litem. According to the bill analysis, this gap can lead to either delays in proceedings or the need to appoint out-of-county counsel, increasing costs and potentially compromising the child’s best interests. By addressing this practical need while preserving core ethical protections, the bill strikes a balance between safeguarding prosecutorial integrity and ensuring vulnerable children receive timely and competent legal representation.

From a policy perspective, HB 917 aligns well with all five liberty principles. It enhances government accountability, protects individual liberty through ethical boundaries, and addresses real-world resource constraints without expanding government authority or spending. The fiscal note further supports this conclusion, indicating no significant cost to state or local government entities.

Therefore, based on both the legislative intent and its practical, limited scope, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 917.

• Individual Liberty: By maintaining ethical boundaries for public prosecutors, the bill helps ensure fairness in the legal process. At the same time, it allows these attorneys to serve as court-appointed advocates for children in child protection cases, helping preserve the legal rights of vulnerable individuals when there’s a shortage of available lawyers, especially in rural areas.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill holds current and former prosecutors accountable for maintaining impartiality and avoiding conflicts of interest. It reinforces the idea that public officials must not use their former positions for personal or legal advantage in cases where they once served the state.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not interfere with private enterprise or create barriers for businesses. It introduces a narrow restriction on one type of legal service for a specific category of former public employees. However, the exception for attorney ad litem appointments actually helps courts function more efficiently, which indirectly supports the legal services market, especially in underserved areas.
• Private Property Rights: This bill does not involve land use, takings, or any matter directly related to private property rights.
• Limited Government: Rather than expanding state power, the bill fine-tunes an existing law to make it more practical and ethically sound. It provides a targeted exception to an existing restriction without creating any new bureaucracy or regulatory system. It reflects good stewardship and thoughtful governance without overreach.

• SB 1457 (Same As)