logo
Texas bills requiring air-conditioned prisons languish despite temperatures being ruled unconstitutional

Texas bills requiring air-conditioned prisons languish despite temperatures being ruled unconstitutional

Yahoo04-04-2025

A week after a federal judge declared hot conditions in Texas prisons unconstitutional, a legislative push to require air conditioning in every state prison has not gained significant traction.
None of the five bills lawmakers have filed to require prison cooling have been scheduled for a committee hearing yet, and the issue has hardly been mentioned during public hearings about how the state should allocate its estimated $194.6 billion two-year budget.
Officials from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which oversees the state's 101 prison facilities, asked lawmakers for $118 million over the next biennium to install air conditioning in about 11,000 units. Even if lawmakers grant that request, millions more will be needed to get to the at least $1.1 billion the TDCJ says they would need to fully air condition their prisons.
'I don't know how state leaders look at themselves in the mirror with this situation persisting,' said Rep. John Bryant, D-Dallas, who authored a bill that would require full prison air conditioning. 'I'm hopeful this will be treated more seriously this session. It's a moral and now a legal responsibility.'
Since a 2018 House Corrections Committee wrote in their interim report to the Legislature that TDCJ's heat mitigation efforts were not enough to ensure the well-being of inmates and the correctional officers who work in prisons, lawmakers have tried to pass bills that would require the agency to install air conditioning. None of those bills made it to the governor's desk.
During that time, TDCJ has also been slowly installing air conditioning. They have added 11,788 'cool beds,' and they are in the process of procuring about 12,000 more. The addition is thanks to $85.5 million state lawmakers appropriated during the last legislative session. Although not earmarked for air conditioning, an agency spokesperson said all of that money is being used to cool more prisons.
Still, about two thirds of Texas' prison inmates reside in facilities that are not fully air conditioned in housing areas. Indoor temperatures routinely top 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and inmates report oppressive, suffocating conditions in which they douse themselves with toilet water in an attempt to cool off. Hundreds of inmates have been diagnosed with heat-related illnesses, court records state, and at least two dozen others have died from heat-related causes.
The pace at which the state is installing air conditioning is insufficient, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman wrote in a 91-page decision last week. The lack of system-wide air conditioning violates the U.S. Constitution, and the prison agency's plan to slowly chip away at cooling its facilities — over an estimated timeline of at least 25 years — is too slow, he wrote.
Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said in an emailed statement that the supplemental appropriations bill will include the $118 million TDCJ requested to fund approximately 11,000 new air-conditioned beds. It also will include $301 million to construct additional dorms — which the prison agency requested to accommodate its growing prison population — and those new facilities will all be air-conditioned.
That may not be enough to satisfy Pitman's ruling or some state lawmakers. Bryant said he wants to see $500 million allocated to the effort this session.
'The state must fully fund the system now, in this legislative session,' said Erica Grossman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs who sued Bryan Collier, the prison agency's executive director.
Pitman declined to require temporary air conditioning, noting that this would only undermine the speed at which TDCJ can install permanent air conditioning. Instead, the case will likely move to a trial. The plaintiffs are expected to win and be entitled to 'expeditious installation of permanent air conditioning,' Pitman wrote.
In the meantime, Grossman and the plaintiffs she is representing are urging lawmakers to allocate more funding to prison air conditioning.
In 2021, a bill that set a seven-year time limit on air conditioning installation cleared the House on a 123-18 vote. The bill died in the Senate Finance Committee, where it never received a hearing.
Two years later, lawmakers tried again to no avail.
'This comes down to political will,' said Amite Dominick, who has worked on prison air conditioning legislation for multiple sessions and founded Texas Prison Community Advocates, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. 'They would rather continue an image of tough-on-crime than be humane.'
This session, four prison heat-related bills filed by House members have been referred to the House Corrections Committee: House Bill 1315, House Bill 2997, House Bill 3006 and House Bill 489. None have been scheduled for a hearing.
HB 1315, by Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, and HB 489 by Rep. Jon Rosenthal, D-Houston, are identical and would require each cellblock, dormitory and common area in Texas prisons to be equipped with an air conditioning unit. Temperatures would have to be maintained between 65 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit, a rule that already applies to Texas' county jails.
HB 3006, by Terry Canales, D-Edinburg, would require the installation of climate control in phases to be completed by the end of 2032 — if the Legislature allocates funding.
HB 2997, authored by Bryant, goes further. It also would require the installation of temperature gauges in each area of the prison. Each year, the agency would submit a report to elected state leaders about the number of incidents in which the required temperature wasn't maintained.
'We added that so we can monitor whether or not TDCJ is complying with the requirements,' Bryant said, explaining that lawmakers previously have been given reports that offer an average of the temperatures across the entire facility, occluding the heat inside some cell blocks.
An internal investigation also found that TDCJ has falsified temperatures, and an investigator hired by the prison agency concluded that some of the agency's temperature logs are false. Citing that report, Pitman wrote 'The Court has no confidence in the data TDCJ generates and uses to implement its heat mitigation measures and record the conditions within the facilities.'
In the upper chamber, Sen. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, along with six other Democratic state senators, filed Senate Bill 169, which would require that prison temperatures be maintained between 65 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit.
The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing. Huffman did not answer questions about whether she has plans to schedule a hearing.
Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

Former Rep. David Jolly announces bid for Florida governor
Former Rep. David Jolly announces bid for Florida governor

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Former Rep. David Jolly announces bid for Florida governor

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Former Rep. David Jolly announced Thursday that he is entering the Florida governor's race. Jolly previously represented Florida District 13 from 2014 to 2017 as a Republican. However, in the governor's race, Jolly will run as a Democratic candidate. 'Let's end the politics of division and return Florida to voters who simply want an economy that works, the best education system in the world, safe communities, and a government that stays out of their doctors' offices and family decisions,' Jolly said in a news release. 'This is a different type of issues-driven, results-focused campaign, and it will be driven not by anger and division but by optimism and solutions,' Jolly said. 'We are building a new coalition of Floridians who deeply care about their state and are desperate for real answers to real problems that are putting our quality of life at risk.' Jolly is the first Democrat to enter the Florida governor's race. U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, Surfside Mayor Charles Burkett and State Sen. Jason Pizzo have already thrown their hats into the race. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store