Where Abbott's emergency priorities stand as session end nears
While one — education savings accounts — has already passed, here's where the other six stand.
One of Abbott's biggest goals this session is to make it harder for accused criminals to get out on bail. Abbott publicly spoke on the issue multiple times this month, looking to put pressure on Democratic Texas House members to help him get the legislation across the finish line.
READ MORE: Texas lawmakers debate bills to curb illegal immigration
On Monday, the Texas House is set to vote on Senate Joint Resolution 1, Senate Joint Resolution 5, Senate Bill 9, Senate Bill 40 and Senate Bill 664. These five bills are the Texas Senate's bail reform package which — among other things — prevents undocumented defendants who are accused of a felony from receiving bail, allows judges to deny bail for certain violent accusations and allows the prosecution to challenge a bail decision for certain criminal accusations.
The Texas Senate is currently working on House Bill 2, the public education funding bill, in committee. The bill covers all aspects of public school funding, including provisions to make sure new funding goes towards teachers.
Originally, the Texas Senate passed the standalone Senate Bill 26 for teacher pay raises. However, the bill has not made it out of committee.
In early April, the Texas Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 7 to holistically address water infrastructure.
State lawmakers aim to fund water projects for years to come
On May 7, SB 7 made it out of the House Natural Resources committee unanimously, and is expected to be debated on the House floor next week.
The Texas House passed House Bill 120 in March, with only State Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, voting against the bill. The bill takes a large swing at expanding career and technical education (CTE) in Texas's public schools through grants and expansion of the rural pathway excellence partnership program. HB 120 also includes more funding for schools who implement a Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) program.
HB 120 was heard in the Texas Senate Committee on Education K-16 last week and remains pending.
Last week, State Rep. Morgan Meyer, R-Dallas, announced the House and Senate had struck a deal on tax relief.
Meyer's House Bill 9 initially proposed to increase the Business Personal Property (BBP) exemption to $250,000 from $2,500. An updated version was sent to the Senate floor with a 9-0 vote last Monday. The BPP exemption allows homeowners to write off parts of their property if used for their business.
The Senate unanimously voted to pass HB 9, however their amendments need to be agreed upon by the House — or hashed out in a conferencing committee — before being sent to Abbott's desk.
In exchange, Meyer's committee voted out Senate Bill 4 and Senate Joint Resolution 2 to increase the homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000. They also passed out Senate Bill 23 to increase the homestead exemption for seniors from $10,000 to $60,000. Both bills are scheduled to be heard on the House floor on Tuesday.
In March, the Texas House Delivery of Government Efficiency (DOGE) committee sent House Bill 150 to the Texas House floor, where it was later approved. The bill establishes a cyber command within the University of Texas school system.
The bill has a hearing scheduled for the Texas Senate Committee on Business & Commerce on Tuesday.
For the three bills still needing consideration in the House, the clock is ticking. All Senate bills have to be heard in the House by May 27. The 89th Legislative Session ends on June 2.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why Trump continues to lie about the 2020 presidential election
The right results were given in 2020. Trump lost. But nearly five years later, whenever Trump speaks, the question isn't whether he'll find a way to switch the conversation to the 2020 election but when. Given his tendency to babble about inconsequential subjects, it's tempting to dismiss Trump's off-script ramblings. But don't overlook the method behind the madness here. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up From Trump's Advertisement That's what he's doing every time he repeats the Big Lie about 2020. He upholds it as an example of a dishonest election stolen from the people despite no evidence of widespread fraud in that presidential contest. Trump lost because American voters had enough of him. Advertisement The president's motives are clear. He needs Republicans to hold on to the House in 2026 because he knows that if Democrats regain control they'll start impeachment hearings against him as soon as possible. For all his big talk about big wins in his second term, Trump knows that voters, For years, Trump undermined election integrity. As the 2016 presidential contest entered its final weeks, he falsely claimed that the election was This was Trump's hedge against a possible defeat: He could only lose an election if it was rigged against him. Of course, all of his machinations after he lost in 2020 supercharged his baseless allegations, culminating in the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he attempted to overthrow the outcome of the presidential election. But despite Trump's impeachment for incitement, he hasn't stopped promoting the antidemocratic lie that he was robbed and that election integrity must be restored, while he's doing everything to destroy it. That includes Trump's latest attempt to end mail-in voting by Advertisement Mail-in balloting garnered widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. According to a Trump remains unswayed. He Seven months into his Trump uses 2020 as a phony example of a crooked election. That's why he brings it up as often as possible and usually in places where he receives no pushback. But the voters he's targeting should also remember 2020 as the year when a historic number of people, despite a pandemic, cast their ballots and tossed this tyrant out of power. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries vows to call Kristi Noem to testify in long-overdue oversight push
When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised that Kristi Noem would be one of the first called before Congress if Democrats take the majority in 2026, he wasn't just previewing political theater — he was signaling a long-overdue accountability moment. Because what we've seen under Noem's watch as Homeland Security secretary isn't just controversial policy, it's a collision between power and the Constitution. Listen, the government has every right to deport violent criminals. But what we're talking about here isn't that. These are families being ripped apart, U.S. citizen children deported to countries they've never known, and raids on churches, swap meets and sidewalks that read less like lawful arrests and more like kidnappings in broad daylight. Armed, masked agents storming neighborhoods — it looks less like 'law and order' and more like a scene from a dystopian movie. Except it's not fiction. It's happening here. And at the center of it is Secretary Noem, who, when asked to define 'habeas corpus' earlier this year — which, by the way, is a bedrock constitutional right — got it flat-out wrong. She described it as the president's power to deport people. That's not just a slip of the tongue; that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the very principle that protects all of us from government overreach. Habeas corpus is the right of a person to challenge their detention. Without it, the government could lock up anyone indefinitely. Even Abraham Lincoln had to go to Congress before suspending it during the Civil War. Yet somehow, Kristi Noem thinks she can redefine it on the fly. Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up. The ACLU and others say these mass raids aren't about justice, they're about quotas. Three thousand arrests a day, demanded from the White House, no matter who gets caught in the dragnet. The result? Overcrowded, dungeon-like detention centers, families denied food, water and lawyers. That's not just cruel — it's unconstitutional. And it costs taxpayers millions to warehouse people who pose no threat to society. Jeffries is right: this calls for oversight. Not partisan point-scoring, but a public examination of what happens when immigration policy is driven by fear, politics and raw numbers instead of law, due process and human dignity. Because if the government can strip immigrants of rights today, what's to stop them from doing the same to citizens tomorrow? Kristi Noem may soon face Congress, but make no mistake — this is bigger than her. It's about whether America will continue to twist the meaning of justice until it serves whoever holds power, or whether we'll insist that justice, in this country, still means something. This isn't about Kristi Noem forgetting her civics lesson. It's about whether America still remembers its own.
