Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes
Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) recent call for legislation creating a Chief State Prosecutor in Texas reflects growing public frustration with lenient district attorneys and repeat violent offenders cycling through the criminal justice system without meaningful consequences. The cases driving this proposal are serious, emotionally charged, and demand accountability. Texans rightly expect prosecutors to enforce the law and protect innocent lives.
“I am calling for legislation that creates a Chief State Prosecutor to actually prosecute criminals like this that DAs in places like Austin refuse to prosecute. Progressive DAs are literally leading to the murder of Texans. Those DAs must be held accountable and prosecutorial power must be shifted to actual prosecutors.”
Source: Gov. Greg Abbott (R), Twitter/X Post 12.22.2025
However, liberty-focused policy analysis requires more than reacting to disturbing outcomes. It requires asking whether the proposed solution aligns with the constitutional structure of Texas government, respects individual liberty, and avoids unnecessary expansion of state power. History consistently shows that expanding government authority in response to failure often masks deeper problems rather than resolving them.
The following analysis evaluates the Texas Chief State Prosecutor proposal through the lens of limited government, local accountability, due process, and individual liberty, while examining whether existing Texas law already provides tools that are being ignored in favor of political optics.
Texas Chief State Prosecutor and Accountability
Under Texas law, prosecutorial authority is intentionally decentralized. District and county attorneys are locally elected and accountable to the voters they serve. This structure reflects a deliberate choice to prevent concentration of prosecutorial power at the state level, recognizing that prosecution is among the most coercive powers government exercises.
Governor Abbott’s proposal would shift that balance by creating a statewide prosecutor empowered to intervene when local district attorneys decline to pursue charges. The stated goal is to counter progressive prosecutors who refuse to enforce certain laws, resulting in repeat offenders remaining on the streets.
While the frustration behind this proposal is understandable, the creation of a Chief State Prosecutor represents a significant centralization of power. It raises the fundamental question of whether Texas should abandon local accountability in favor of state-level intervention, or whether the problem lies not in the absence of authority but in the refusal to use authority that already exists.
Prosecutorial Discretion vs. Bail Reform
Much of the public debate surrounding repeat offenders has focused on bail reform, particularly following the passage of constitutional amendments aimed at limiting judicial discretion in releasing dangerous defendants. However, many of the most egregious cases cited as justification for a Chief State Prosecutor do not primarily stem from bail policy failures.
Instead, they reflect repeated prosecutorial decisions to dismiss charges, reduce felonies to misdemeanors, and avoid jury trials altogether. Bail law cannot compensate for prosecutors who decline to pursue charges aggressively or who repeatedly offer plea deals that fail to incapacitate dangerous offenders.
Misidentifying prosecutorial failure as a bail problem allows state leaders to claim action while avoiding the more politically difficult task of confronting prosecutors who are abusing their discretion. From a liberty perspective, this distinction matters because expanding bail restrictions while ignoring prosecutorial negligence merely shifts blame without fixing the underlying issue.
Existing Texas Law and Prosecutorial Removal
One of the strongest counterpoints to the Chief State Prosecutor proposal is that Texas law already provides a mechanism to address negligent or lawless district attorneys. Texas Local Government Code §87.013 allows for the removal of certain local officials, including prosecutors, for official misconduct or incompetence.
This statute empowers citizens and courts to act when prosecutors systematically fail to perform their duties. It is a direct accountability mechanism rooted in local control and constitutional structure. Yet it is rarely discussed by state leadership, rarely promoted, and rarely used.
The absence of enforcement of §87.013 raises an uncomfortable question. If the Governor believes progressive prosecutors are endangering lives, why has there been no sustained effort to encourage or assist the use of existing removal mechanisms? Why has the focus shifted toward creating new offices rather than enforcing the law already on the books?
From a liberty standpoint, ignoring existing remedies in favor of expanding government power suggests a preference for political optics over structural accountability.
Public Safety Arguments for a Chief State Prosecutor
Supporters of a Chief State Prosecutor argue that immediate intervention is necessary when local prosecutors refuse to enforce the law. Elections and removal proceedings take time, and during that time, dangerous individuals may reoffend. A centralized prosecutor promises speed, uniformity, and decisive action.
There is also an argument rooted in equal protection. Texans should not experience radically different levels of law enforcement based solely on geography. When district attorneys publicly announce non-prosecution policies, they effectively nullify state law for entire communities.
These concerns are legitimate and cannot be dismissed. Public safety is a core function of government, and persistent prosecutorial negligence undermines confidence in the justice system.
Liberty Concerns With Centralized Prosecutorial Power in Texas
Despite its appeal, the Texas Chief State Prosecutor’s proposal conflicts with fundamental liberty principles. Prosecutorial authority is not merely administrative power. It is the power to deprive individuals of liberty, to coerce plea agreements, and to determine who faces imprisonment.
Centralizing that authority creates a single point of failure. A future administration could just as easily use a Chief State Prosecutor to override local prosecutors for ideological reasons unrelated to public safety. Once created, such power does not disappear when political winds change.
Local prosecutors can be removed by voters and challenged through local courts. A statewide prosecutor is inherently more insulated from direct accountability. Liberty-minded governance favors dispersed power precisely because it limits the damage any single actor can cause.
Due Process Risks and Politicized Prosecution in Texas
Another concern is the risk of politicized prosecution. A Chief State Prosecutor responding to public outrage and election cycle pressure may prioritize high-profile cases over careful evidentiary review. This threatens due process and the presumption of innocence.
The liberty interest at stake is not abstract. Prosecutorial overreach has historically harmed political dissidents, minorities, and unpopular defendants. Safeguards against underprosecution must not become an excuse for overprosecution driven by political incentives.
A justice system that swings between extremes based on who holds power is incompatible with liberty.
Accountability Versus Optics in Texas Criminal Justice Reform
A recurring theme in this debate is the substitution of optics for enforcement. Constitutional amendments, public statements, and new offices create the appearance of action while avoiding confrontation with entrenched political actors.
Using Texas Local Government Code §87.013 to remove negligent prosecutors would be messy, controversial, and politically costly. But it would also reinforce the principle that no official is above accountability. Creating a Chief State Prosecutor avoids that confrontation while expanding state power.
Liberty principles favor hard accountability over symbolic expansion.
This tension between accountability and structural overreach is not unique to prosecutorial policy. Texas has recently confronted similar questions in the context of bail reform, where public safety concerns led to constitutional change rather than enforcement of existing law. Texas Policy Research has previously examined that dynamic in detail, analyzing how accountability failures are often mistaken for gaps in authority, and why expanding governmental power can undermine due process without addressing the root problem. Readers interested in that broader constitutional framework may find that analysis instructive.
Conclusion: Liberty and Prosecutorial Accountability
The failures prompting Governor Abbott’s proposal are real and dangerous. Texans deserve protection from repeat offenders and from prosecutors who refuse to enforce the law. But expanding centralized prosecutorial power is not the only option, nor is it the most consistent with liberty principles.
Texas already possesses tools to address prosecutorial negligence. Enforcing existing law, empowering local accountability mechanisms, and confronting political resistance directly would preserve constitutional structure while addressing the root problem.
Liberty is not preserved by adding layers of government when existing authority goes unused. It is preserved by demanding accountability from those already entrusted with power.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
