According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 40 is not expected to have any fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill does not impose any new mandates or create new responsibilities for state agencies, and therefore, the state budget would remain unaffected by its implementation.

However, the bill may have localized financial consequences for certain political subdivisions. Specifically, local governments that currently allocate public funds to nonprofits for the purpose of posting bail bonds could see a reduction in their expenditures, as the bill would prohibit this activity. This could represent a cost savings for jurisdictions that have adopted such funding practices. On the other hand, if a political subdivision were to violate the bill’s provisions, it could become subject to litigation initiated by taxpayers or residents. If those plaintiffs prevail, the subdivision would be required to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, potentially increasing legal liabilities at the local level.

Overall, while SB 40 aims to constrain the use of local public funds and align spending with more traditional governmental roles, any resulting fiscal impacts would depend on a locality’s current practices and whether it becomes involved in legal disputes over prohibited activities. The Office of Court Administration and Texas Judicial Council also contributed to this analysis, but did not identify additional fiscal effects.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 40 based on its alignment with all five core liberty principles. The bill prohibits political subdivisions from using public funds to pay nonprofit organizations that post bail bonds, thereby reinforcing principles of limited government and fiscal restraint. The bill responds to specific concerns about recent instances in Harris County, where public funds may have been directed to charitable bail organizations, raising questions about government involvement in the judicial process and the use of taxpayer dollars for non-essential, non-governmental functions.

From a liberty-oriented standpoint, SB 40 serves to protect individual taxpayers from having their money used to indirectly intervene in judicial matters that should remain private or charitable in nature. It ensures that assistance for criminal defendants, while permitted through private donations, is not underwritten by the government. This respects both private property rights and personal responsibility by requiring individuals or their support networks to manage bail needs without government-subsidized nonprofits. The provision for injunctive relief, coupled with fee recovery for prevailing taxpayers, gives residents a direct, noncriminal mechanism to enforce this accountability.

Furthermore, the bill does not impose new criminal penalties or regulatory burdens, and its fiscal implications are neutral at the state level while potentially saving local governments from legal liabilities or contested expenditures. In sum, SB 40 responsibly limits governmental scope, upholds property rights, encourages individual accountability, avoids coercive redistribution of public funds, and strengthens taxpayer oversight, making it consistent with both the letter and spirit of liberty-focused governance.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not directly restrict personal freedoms but instead ensures that governmental entities remain neutral actors in the bail process. It preserves the principle that charitable and private actions (such as posting bail) should remain independent from state influence. Individuals retain the right to secure bail through private means, but the government is barred from subsidizing that process through nonprofits. This avoids the entanglement of public authority with individual judicial outcomes.
• Personal Responsibility: By prohibiting public funding of nonprofits that pay bail, the bill reinforces that the responsibility for securing release from pretrial detention lies with the defendant or their private supporters. This discourages dependency on government-facilitated charitable interventions and encourages personal and community-based support structures, promoting accountability and responsible conduct in interactions with the legal system.
• Free Enterprise: The bill supports the free market in the bail industry by removing government-subsidized competition. When political subdivisions channel public funds to nonprofits that pay bail, it can create market distortions that disadvantage private bail bond businesses. This bill helps ensure a level playing field by preventing the government from indirectly funding a competitor in what is otherwise a private, regulated industry.
• Private Property Rights: The bill strengthens property rights by allowing taxpayers and residents to file suit if their local government violates the statute. If successful, these individuals can recover attorney’s fees and costs. This empowers citizens to act as fiscal watchdogs over how their tax dollars are spent and ensures that public funds are not used for activities beyond the scope of traditional governmental responsibility.
• Limited Government: The bill most directly reinforces the principle of limited government. It places a clear boundary on how far local government can go in supporting criminal defendants, excluding nonprofit bail payments from legitimate public expenditures. It prevents local authorities from engaging in discretionary spending that lacks broad taxpayer consent and moves criminal justice support beyond core government functions.

Texas Bail Reform: Governor Abbott's Push for Change and the Political Battle Ahead

• HB 76 (Same As)
• SB 1048 (Same As)