SB 9 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.

SB 9 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 SB 9 with principles of due process, individual liberty, and limited government, while still maintaining the bill’s core objective of protecting public safety.

Political Landscape:

• The Republican Party of Texas supports tougher bail laws, increased public safety measures, and stricter judicial oversight, while also favoring restrictions on charitable bail organizations, though they oppose cashless bail.
• The Libertarian Party of Texas likely opposes an expansion of government intervention in the bail system, restricting individual liberty and the overregulation of charitable bail organizations. They advocate for eliminating cash bail and allowing more individualized risk assessments for pretrial release.
• The Texas Democratic Party likely opposes SB 9 due to concerns that it disproportionately impacts low-income individuals and minorities by making it more difficult to secure bail. They generally support bail reform that reduces pretrial detention and limits monetary bail requirements.

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

• HB 75 (Same As)