Latest news with #GregAbbott
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Automatic denial of bail for some migrants fails to pass Texas House
The Texas House on Wednesday rejected a novel proposal asking voters to amend the state Constitution to automatically deny bail to any unauthorized migrant accused of certain felonies, with Democrats holding firm to jettison the final piece of Gov. Greg Abbott's priority bail package. Senate Joint Resolution 1, the last measure still eligible for House approval out of a broader package tightening the state's bail laws, fell far short of the 100 votes necessary to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, winning support from all Republicans and just two Democrats — Rep. Joe Moody of El Paso, the top Democratic negotiator on bail, and Rep. Richard Raymond of Laredo. The final vote was 87 to 39, with four Democrats declining to take a position and marking themselves present. Under the state Constitution, almost everyone who is arrested has the right to be released on bail. The limited exceptions are people charged with capital murder and those accused of certain repeat felonies or bail violations. According to the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court, bail cannot be excessive, and pretrial detention largely should not be considered the default unless the defendant is a flight or safety risk, as criminal defendants are legally presumed innocent. Last week, lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the centerpiece of the broader bail package, Senate Joint Resolution 5, in addition to Senate Bill 9, ushering in a sweeping crack down on the state's bail system that Abbott had pursued across several sessions. SJR 5, if the Senate concurs on the House's version as expected, will ask voters in November to require judges to deny bail, in certain cases, for the most violent offenses. 'We've been working hard on this for a long time,' Abbott said to reporters on the House floor last week. 'Too many people have been murdered because of the broken bail system that we've had, and the members of the House stepped up and did what they needed to do for their constituents, which is to cast a vote that's going to save lives in their districts.' But on Wednesday, Democrats denied Abbott the full legislative package he'd pushed for by rejecting SJR 1 and Senate Joint Resolution 87, a last-minute proposal to automatically deny bail to anyone accused of certain felonies if they had previously been convicted of a felony or were out on bond at the time of the alleged offense. 'The House took meaningful steps to enact smart, evidence-based reforms that empower our justice system to keep communities safe, while successfully rejecting ugly, discriminatory bills that would have dragged Texas backwards,' Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston and chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a statement Wednesday. SJR 1 previously failed to top the 100-vote threshold last week and was repeatedly postponed until Wednesday, the last day the House could give final approval to any Senate proposals. Top lawmakers spent the week trying to cobble together an agreement that could win sufficient Democratic buy-in, but ultimately fell flat. Many Democrats said in the lead up to the Wednesday vote that there was no amendment that could overcome their apprehension about the legislation. 'To many members, no matter what the JR says, the rhetoric itself is toxic to the point that I don't know if there is a changing it to pass,' Moody told The Texas Tribune last week. 'The idea that the JR continues to foster the rhetoric that immigrants are here only to do violence or rape your wives and daughters,' he said, was preventing most Democrats from supporting the proposal. Last week, Moody had decried 'dehumanizing' and sometimes 'nakedly racist' language laced throughout political debates about immigration. Republican leaders framed the measure as a step to protect the public from dangerous unauthorized migrants, who they argued were a de facto flight risk given how they entered the country. 'We try to be a very generous country,' Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo and chair of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, said last week. 'But when you come into our country, and you harm our citizens, then we have an interest in making sure that we protect other citizens so that you don't harm them as well.' Democrats pointed to their overwhelming backing of SJR 5 as evidence of their commitment to public safety — an attempt, in part, to head off future political attacks for their rejection of SJR 1 and SJR 87. 'Democrats took a firm stand on public safety,' Moody told The Texas Tribune last week, calling SJR 5 the 'strongest constitutional amendment that's ever been proposed on bail denial.' 'It was done in a way that has legal process and due process for those that are accused,' he added. 'Democrats should be proud of their vote on that, and I think that's what they should go home and talk about — not respond to the rhetoric of fear.' Bail is a legal tool used around the country to incentivize people accused of a crime to appear at their court hearings. Defendants can pay the full bail amount, which is refundable if they go to all their hearings, or they can pay a nonrefundable partial deposit to a bail bond company that fronts the full amount. People who cannot afford to pay a deposit or their bail are often left detained for weeks or months, even though bail amounts are not meant to serve as a form of punishment. SJR 1 would have required judges to automatically deny bail and detain anyone 'not lawfully present in this country' who was accused of certain election felonies, drug-dealing crimes and the most serious violent felonies, including murder, sexual assault, human trafficking and aggravated robbery. The legislation defined a person 'not lawfully present' as any migrant who does not enter the United States through a port of entry, or who overstays a visa or other protected status. It considered U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents and those granted asylum, refugee or military parole statuses to be 'lawfully present.' On Wednesday, in a last-ditch bid to win more Democratic votes, Smithee introduced an amendment to the resolution to also consider T and U status holders — who are victims of human trafficking and other crimes — and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients as lawful residents. The amendment also removed the term, 'illegal alien,' from the resolution. It was adopted 93 to 30. All other non-citizens would have been subject to automatic detention if a judge found probable cause that they committed one of the listed offenses. Republicans said the legislation would save lives by keeping dangerous defendants locked up. 'They're released out into the public, and those end up being the most dangerous people that we have out there,' Smithee said last week, evoking the murder of Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old Houstonian whose case became a national GOP talking point when the two men charged with her killing were found to have entered the United States illegally from Venezuela. (They were out on federal custody, not on bail, at the time of the crime.) 'We know that what we're doing now is not working,' he said. 'The human tragedy that has occurred because we've had this law school debate about rights — what about the rights of these victims? What about Jocelyn Nungaray? What were her rights?' Democrats in opposition to SJR 1 argued that it would unconstitutionally violate immigrant defendants' equal protection rights and undermine due process by barring judges from making individualized analyses of each case. And they argued that the magistrates responsible for bail do not have the training nor resources to determine defendants' immigration status. 'SJR 1 is unconstitutional, and it unfairly targets the immigrant community,' Wu said in a brief interview last week. Rep. Erin Gámez, D-Brownsville, added in an interview last week that the proposal would constitute 'an unfunded mandate on our already overcrowded jails. Border communities that are taking the brunt of this are receiving absolutely no extra compensation to handle this burden the rest of the state only talks about and doesn't see.' Adoption of SJR 5, some also argued, made SJR 1 unnecessary. 'If you think somebody's a flight risk, then fine,' Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston, told Tribune last week, emphasizing that SJR 5 would already require judges to deny bail to defendants accused of the most violent crimes and who may be a flight or safety risk. 'But you shouldn't just make that determination based on somebody's immigration status.' Moody added that functionally, anyone who would have been subject to SJR 1 would already be detained by SJR 5 or by a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement hold. Unauthorized migrants accused of a crime and subject to an ICE detainer are required to be held for an additional 48 hours so that they can be transferred to federal custody. 'Our system deals with both dangerous people we need protection from and people who've simply made a mistake — and, unfortunately, those who are falsely accused,' Moody said in a statement Wednesday. 'The balance we struck on bail will treat each of them appropriately instead of sweeping all of them up together. This is a big win for all Texas communities.' First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Texas governor signs app store age verification measure
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed a bill Tuesday requiring app stores, such as those run by Apple and Google, to verify user ages amid a push to ramp up protections for children online. The Lone Star State is the second to pass a law putting the responsibility of age verification on app stores, following Utah's lead. The Texas law is set to go into effect Jan. 1. Apple has pushed back on the measure, emphasizing that it shares the 'goal of strengthening kids' online safety' but is concerned it 'threatens the privacy of all users' by requiring app stores to collect and keep sensitive personal information about users. 'We believe there are better proposals that help keep kids safe without requiring millions of people to turn over their personal information,' an Apple spokesperson said in a statement. The pushback reflects a wider debate over who bears responsibility for determining users' ages — apps themselves or app stores. Social media giants, like Meta, X and Snap, have voiced support for shifting the onus of age verification onto app stores, as the conversation comes to Washington. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. John James (R-Mich.) introduced a bill earlier this month that, much like the measure from Lee's home state, would require Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store to verify user ages. Meta is also part of a new lobbying group in Washington, the Coalition for Competitive Mobile Experience, pushing for app store age verification and raising concerns about Apple's app store practices. They argue that app stores are best suited to handle the issue because they already have age data. 'Parents want a one-stop shop to verify their child's age and grant permission for them to download apps in a privacy-preserving way,' Meta, X and Snap said in a joint statement following the Texas bill signing. 'The app store is the best place for it, and more than one-third of US states have introduced bills recognizing the central role app stores play,' they added. 'We applaud Texas for taking this important step and urge Congress to follow suit.' This story was updated at 7:09 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Texas House passes bill tightening rules on school bus seat belts
For the first time, a bill requiring school districts to report the presence and cost of seat belts on their buses cleared a key hurdle on Tuesday when the Texas House overwhelmingly passed the proposal. The bill, Senate Bill 546, would also eliminate the exemption that allows buses built before 2018 to operate without restraints. The state-level conversation about enhancing students' transportation safety comes after a deadly bus crash in Bastrop County on March 22, 2024, that left a prekindergarten student and 33-year-old man dead. The bill builds on decades of Texas laws promoting seat belt use on school buses, although many students across the state continue riding unrestrained daily. SB 546 now heads back to the Senate for final approval before advancing to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk to become law. Just before the House's final 104-38 vote Wednesday, Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, thanked Midland Republican Rep. Tom Craddick for carrying the bill through the House. The state hasn't provided the funding districts need to fully equip their buses with seat belts, she said. 'We do know there have been many tragedies of children on these school buses who have lost their lives,' Howard said. Sen. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, who authored the bill, said the proposal is about saving lives. "In an age of discussing school safety and preventable deaths, it is clear that when school buses are equipped with seat belts, they could save the lives of children, bus drivers, and other passengers on board," Menéndez stated in his statement of intent. The March 2024 crash involved a Hays school district bus from 2011 that didn't have seat belts. Forty-four students from Tom Green Elementary School and 11 adults were returning from a field trip to the Capital of Texas Zoo in Bastrop County when a concrete pump truck collided with the bus, causing it to flip on its side. A 2017 state law requires all school buses to have seat belts, but it excludes buses purchased before 2018. The law also allows districts to exempt themselves from the mandate if they can't afford purchasing new buses, which wouldn't change with SB 546. By the end of the 2025-26 school year districts will be required to report to the Texas Education Agency how many buses they operate or contract that lack restraints, have only two-point seat belts or have three-point belts. Districts will also have to report the cost of transitioning their bus fleets to three-point safety belts. While two-point belts only cover a rider's lap, three-point belts look like a standard car seat belt. By Jan. 1, 2027, the TEA is expected to develop a report for state leaders on how much it would cost for all school buses statewide to have seat belts. A November analysis by the American-Statesman revealed that while most school districts have switched to purchasing new buses with seat belts, many districts still use older buses without restraints. District officials and experts who spoke with the Statesman pointed to the financial burden of purchasing new buses, especially for rural districts, as a reason for the delayed transition. In 13 Central Texas school districts the Statesman surveyed at the time, only four, including Austin, had bus fleets fully outfitted with seat belts. Four others had at least 75% of their buses equipped with restraints. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation crashes, has recommended the use of three-point seat belts on school buses since 2018. Although child safety and transportation experts consistently report school buses are among the safest vehicles on the road, they also point to data that belts add protection in rollover crashes similar to the one in Bastrop County. However, laws requiring seat belts on school buses are rare across the U.S. Texas is one of only eight states with any seat belt mandates, regardless of exemptions. Since 2011, 13 crashes involving school buses have killed someone riding in the bus, according to data from the TEA. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas House passes bill tightening rules on school bus seat belts
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Abortion pill crackdown, voting restrictions and trans 'bathroom bill' die in Texas House
Republican Texas lawmakers will claim victory on several conservative priorities as they return to their districts after the legislative session ends, despite Democrats unsuccessfully seeking to derail those proposals. The Legislature passed a bill to establish a school voucher program, clinching a "holy grail" wish list item that had long eluded Gov. Greg Abbott and his predecessor. Thanks to bills that have already passed, Texas will also put the Ten Commandments in every classroom, require state documents to reflect a person's sex assigned at birth, force sheriffs to help arrest migrants who are in the U.S. illegally and ban taxpayer-funded out-of-state abortion travel. Lawmakers are also poised to enact sweeping restrictions on library materials that minors can access and ban THC products entirely through legislation that has been opposed by almost all Democrats. But members of the hard right flank of the GOP are complaining that a number of their priorities languished in the House ahead of a key legislative deadline. Any Senate bills that hadn't preliminarily cleared the House by Tuesday cannot be passed during the regular legislative session, which ends June 2. However, major proposals may be revived in a special session if Abbott designates them as emergency items and calls lawmakers back to Austin. Parts of those bills could also be reshaped as amendments into remaining legislation. Here are some of the bills that died after not making the legislative deadline this week. A sweeping Republican-led proposal to crack down on abortion pills in Texas has run up against a legislative wall. Senate Bill 2880 would have allowed private citizens to sue organizations that mail drugs like mifepristone and misoprostol into Texas for $100,000 or more per violation, mimicking a 2021 law that critics dubbed the 'bounty hunter' ban. It would also have empowered Texas' attorney general to enforce the state's criminal abortion laws, including a ban originating in 1857, by suing violators on behalf of "unborn children of the residents of this state." Anti-abortion groups hoped the measure would cut off the influx of abortion pills that persists despite near-total bans enacted in 2021. Texans who terminate their own pregnancies cannot be held liable under the law, meaning they do not face legal consequences for self-managed abortions. Democrats, on the other hand, labeled the bill a 'bounty hunter bonanza' that shreds constitutional protections and judicial norms. The proposal would have prohibited state district judges from ruling on its constitutionality and allow those that do to be sued for $100,000 or more in damages. Both chambers held hours-long hearings on the legislation in April, and the bill passed the Senate on a party-line vote nearly a month ago. But after it advanced out of a House committee on Friday, the bill got stuck in limbo, never reaching the panel that sets the floor calendars. A bill that would have required Texans to prove their citizenship status when registering to vote, which opponents said could have disenfranchised Texans of their right to participate in elections, also won't pass this session. After the House State Affairs committee heard and voted on the bill, it was never scheduled on the lower chamber's calendar. Senate Bill 16 would have required voters to provide registrars with a document such as a birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate to be eligible to cast a ballot in state or local elections. If a voter did not provide citizenship documents, they would have been able to vote only in federal races. The measure, authored by Mineola Republican Sen. Bryan Hughes and designated a priority by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, would have applied to new voters and retroactively to registered voters. The push to tighten Texas' voter registration relies on largely debunked claims that thousands of noncitizens appeared on the state's voter rolls. The proposed law, however, could have kept more than 1 million law-abiding voters who don't have easy access to a birth certificate or passport from registering, voting rights groups said. A bill that would have barred transgender individuals from using bathrooms and other private spaces aligning with their gender identity in public buildings, such as schools and government offices, saw no movement in the lower chamber this session. Senate Bill 240, by Galveston Republican Sen. Mayes Middleton, passed the upper chamber along party lines in April. A companion measure in the House never got a vote in the House State Affairs Committee. Dubbed the "Texas Women's Privacy Act," the bill would have directed state and local governments to prohibit people in public buildings from using restrooms, locker rooms and other facilities that do not correspond with the sex listed on their birth certificate. The provisions applied to spaces like the Texas Capitol, public schools and universities, city halls, county courthouses and public libraries. Proponents of so-called bathroom bills like SB 240 argue that the legislation would protect women from encountering men in public restrooms. Such bills are often aimed at transgender people who would not be able to use facilities aligning with their gender identity. Supporters of such bills say the measures promote women's safety. LGBTQ rights advocates argue they would jeopardize the safety of transgender Texans. In 2017, a sweeping Texas bathroom bill quietly died, amid forceful opposition by rights advocates and the business community despite months of public crusading by social conservatives on the issue. Two of Middleton's higher education bills died in the final days of the session after having initially gained momentum. Middleton, the Republican from Galveston who is also campaigning for attorney general, proposed Senate Bill 2595 to add a criminal penalty for protesters who wear a mask to conceal their identity or 'intentionally harass' or threaten another person in a public place. State lawmakers weighed a similar ban during an interim hearing before the session in response to an interim charge from Patrick to 'unmask' protesters following contentious pro-Palestinian demonstrators at several Texas universities in April 2024. Many demonstrators wore facial N95 masks during the protests and more than 150 Texans faced arrest. Middleton's bill passed the Senate on May 6 with the support of some Democrats. Although it was listed on the calendar on the last day for the House to pass bills to second reading, it was not presented on the floor, and was 'postponed' to June 3 — a gentle way to indicate the bill's death. A bill the House did pass by Sen. Brandon Creighton, SB 2972, would instruct campuses to bar protesters from wearing face coverings with the intent to intimidate, obscure identity or interfere with officials. Middleton's other high-profile higher education bill this session would have repealed the 2001 Texas Dream Act and prevented students without legal status from accessing in-state tuition or state financial aid, but it was taken off the intent calendar for the Senate on Monday, and will not have time to go before the House. A number of other legislative proposals died after Texas Democrats challenged them on procedural rules, or ran out of time before Tuesday's deadline. Those include: SB 241, a proposal to penalize cities each time they fail to enforce the state's homeless encampment ban. SB 2519 and House Bill 3879, which would have derailed Austin's multi-billion-dollar light rail project by throwing a wrench in its novel funding mechanism. SB 2858, labeled "Death Star 2.0," which would have let the state withhold sales tax revenue from cities and counties that violate a wide range of Texas laws, including on elections. SB 1927, which would have blocked cities and counties from banning the removal of ashe juniper trees. Environmental groups vehemently opposed the bill, saying it would threaten Golden-cheeked Warblers and potentially facilitate soil erosion. SB 781 and HB 2486, which would have required all law enforcement agencies to create a classified 'department file' for its employees. These would have included records of alleged misconduct. Austin voters in 2023 opted to make such information, which the city previously kept classified in a so-called 'G-file,' part of public record. Lawmakers may seek to work parts of now-dead bills into amendments on other legislation, but time is running out for that, too. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Abortion pill crackdown, trans 'bathroom bill' die in Texas House
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas becomes second state to require app store age verification
(NewsNation) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the Texas App Store Accountability Act, mandating that Apple and Google verify the age of users on their app stores. The law, set to take effect on January 1, requires parental consent for users under 18 to download apps or make in-app purchases. The law follows similar legislation passed earlier this year in Utah and reflects growing concern over children's access to digital platforms. Violent NYC crypto robbery reflects growing global trend Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, along with Snap and X, praised the bill's passage. 'Parents want a one-stop shop to verify their child's age and grant permission for them to download apps in a privacy-preserving way. The app store is the best place for it, and more than one-third of US states have introduced bills recognizing the central role app stores play,' the companies said, according to Reuters. However, Apple and Google opposed the law, arguing that it requires them to share age data with all apps, even those that pose no risk. 'If enacted, app marketplaces will be required to collect and keep sensitive personal identifying information for every Texan who wants to download an app, even if it's an app that simply provides weather updates or sports scores,' Apple said in a statement. How AI is shaping industries across the US According to Reuters, both companies have proposed alternatives that would limit data sharing to only apps that require age verification. 'We see a role for legislation here,' Kareem Ghanem, senior director of government affairs and public policy at Google, told Reuters. 'It's just got to be done in the right way, and it's got to hold the feet of Zuckerberg and the social media companies to the fire, because it's the harm to kids and teens on those sites that's really inspired people to take a closer look here and see how we can all do better.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
