Latest news with #SenateBill40
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bail Reform Victory In Texas Answers Victims' Calls For Justice
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott traveled to Crime Stoppers of Houston on Tuesday to sign four bail reform bills into law. As previously reported by The Dallas Express, bail reform has been a major focus for Abbott during the most recent legislature, claiming in April that it is a 'deadly and broken bail system.' The bail reform package signed into law by Abbott included Senate Bill 9, Senate Bill 40, House Bill 75, and Senate Joint Resolution 5. allows prosecutors to file appeals for bail that is provided to alleged criminals who commit certain crimes while also allowing only elected judges to reduce the conditions of bail set by another elected judge. Meanwhile, prohibits using state funding to help support any nonprofit that helps provide bail to criminals. was designed to encourage transparency throughout the early portions of the criminal process. Magistrates will now be required to provide a written explanation about why an arrest was conducted without probable cause. Finally, Senate Joint Resolution 5 amends the Texas Constitution and requires judges to deny bail for criminals who commit the worst crimes. The state must prove that the defendant would be a threat to society or would not show up for future trials. Abbott said while signing these bills that the state was dealing with a 'revolving door bail system that repeatedly released dangerous criminals back onto the streets.' 'To the victims and their families, today your pain is answered. Not only are we signing laws that correct the wrongs, your efforts have led to a rewriting of the Constitution of the State of Texas to ensure criminals like those who harmed your families will never be out on the loose again,' he added, according to The Office of Gov. Abbott. Abbott was joined during this event by Aimee Castillo, who has become a bail reform advocate after her brother was murdered by a criminal who was out on bail. Castillo spoke during the event and echoed many of Abbott's comments, calling the previous bail system a 'revolving door' that allowed criminals to walk the streets. 'There is something deeply, tragically wrong with a system that gives repeat, violent felony offenders chance after chance, while families like mine are given a life sentence of grief. I am proud to have played a small role in getting these bills passed, and I am proud to tell my brother he became a catalyst for change,' she added, per The Office of Gov. Abbott. Abbott was also joined at this event by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Chairwoman Joan Huffman, Chairman John Smithee, Crime Stoppers of Houston CEO Rania Makarious, and Crime Stoppers of Houston Director of Victim Services and Advocacy Andy Kahan.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
4 bail reform bills signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott
The Brief Gov. Abbott signed four bail reform bills into law Tuesday Reform advocates and crime victims' family members joined Abbott at the signing Two bail ban proposals were blocked by Democrats during the legislative session HOUSTON - With his signature, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott completed what was described as "a day of reckoning." Four bail reform items were signed by Abbott in Houston on Tuesday, completing a major judicial rewrite. What we know SB 9 provides the most substantial reform. The legislation restricts the use of cashless bonds and allows prosecutors to appeal a judge's decision to grant bail. SJR 5 authorizes a public vote on a constitutional amendment. If passed in November, bail could be denied to people charged with violent crimes, especially repeat offenders. Gov. Abbott called it a travesty that the criminal justice system gives offenders the opportunity to go back to their lives, while victims and their families can never go back. What they're saying "For all of us, this was a resounding call to action. And now today we stand on the verge of real lasting change. Senate Bill 9, Senate Bill 40, House Bill 75, especially SJR 5, the proposed constitutional amendment, represent more than a policy shift. They are promises kept. Promises to victims that their voices mattered, promises to families that we heard their pain, promises to Texans that we will not let violent offenders turn our communities into revolving doors of danger," said Rania Mankarious with Crime Stoppers of Houston. Among those who joined the governor for Tuesday's signing ceremony were several crime victims. Aimee Castillo spoke about her brother who was killed by a repeat offender. The man, according to Castillo, was out on bond. "And as if losing Josh wasn't enough, we were forced to endure even more injustice when we encountered the revolving door at the Harris County courthouse. This man charged with a capital murder while out on multiple felony bonds was offered another bond. How is this possible? How is it justice? There is something deeply tragically wrong with this system that gives repeat violent felony offenders chance after chance while families like mine are given a life sentence of grief," said Castillo. Dig deeper During the session, Democrats successfully blocked two bail ban proposals. State Rep. Joe Moody (D-El Paso) explained why he opposed allowing a public vote on SJR 87 during a debate on May 27. "We know that a few people may have been saved. That's true. Then why not do it for everything? Why not lock up all people accused of crimes indefinitely for fear that they may do something? I guarantee a handful of lives will be saved by doing that, too. But at what cost? The cost of our liberty. The cost to the state inflicting immense, life-destroying punishment on people who haven't been convicted of anything, literally regardless of what the strength of the current charges are. The cost, absolutely, members, to our taxpayers who will foot the bill for detaining these people without due process," said Rep. Moody. On Tuesday, Lt. Gov Dan Patrick called out those who blocked the bail proposals that failed. "We've called out names of judges who don't even work and let murderers out. I want the voters in these districts to call their Democrat members and say Alma Allen, Anna Hernandez, Anne Johnson, Morales, Rosenthal, Simmons, Thompson, Wally, Ward. Hubert Vo, Gene Wu, where are those Democrats, to not stand for the crime victims in this county and in this city," said Patrick. Patrick urged residents of Harris County to contact those lawmakers. "Voters, they are the ones still letting illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes out and they're still the ones letting people who are citizens of this country out on the streets to kill again," said Patrick. What's next Gov. Abbott and Lt. Gov. Patrick promised to bring back the items that failed, but they did not commit to calling a special session for that to happen. The Source Information in this report comes from reporting by FOX 7 Austin's chief political reporter Rudy Koski. This story was reported from Austin.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gianforte vetoes bills that would have limited executive, judicial privilege
Photo illustration by Getty Images. Gov. Greg Gianforte vetoed two bills respectively designed to make the executive and judicial branches of government more transparent to the public — but acknowledged the public's strong right to know in the Montana Constitution. In a veto letter, Gianforte also acknowledged his frustration with 'judicial activism.' House Bill 271 was aimed at ensuring transparency by the executive branch by limiting 'executive privilege,' or the governor's power to withhold specific government information. Senate Bill 40 would have required Montana Supreme Court deliberations to be recorded and, after a case closed, be made available to the public. Gianforte, a Republican, vetoed both bills on Friday using similar rationale, and proponents of HB 271, including the bill sponsor, soon pushed back against 'secret decisions' made by the executive branch. However, University of Montana law school faculty member Constance Van Kley said the rationales offer consistency, and she said members of the public don't lose any rights to information and remain free to request government documents. 'Fundamentally, what it reinforces is that … the existence of privileges from the right to know raises constitutional questions, and the scope of any privilege that is asserted against the right to know raises legal questions,' Van Kley said. In his veto letters, the governor said although the Montana Constitution 'contains some of the strongest — if not the strongest — rights to public information,' limitations exist. He said during the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, delegates acknowledged that privileges, 'such as judicial privilege,' shape the scope of the right to know, or allow for some information to be protected. Gianforte said legislators passed SB 40 'in response to rampant judicial activism,' and he understands and shares their 'deep frustration' and sees it 'as a threat to our constitutional order.' 'Time and time again, judges across Montana issue rulings that infringe on the Legislature's policymaking authority and a governor's ability to faithfully execute the laws,' Gianforte said in the letter. 'The effect of Senate Bill 40, however, will chill candor among justices against the public's interest and weaponize those discussions in future litigation. 'Legal arguments will no longer be properly focused on majority decisions of the court and discussion among justices may become less honest and robust.' Van Kley said the delegates in 1972 generally wanted openness in government, but with limits. 'At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates were really focused primarily on transparency and not exceptions to transparency,' Van Kley said. 'However, they did recognize that judicial deliberations were generally not open to the public already, and so that did seem to be on the delegates' minds as an exception to the transparency provision.' The governor used a similar argument in his veto of HB 271, although he also cited the Montana Supreme Court's order in O'Neill vs. Gianforte. In that case, a citizen and former government official, Jayson O'Neill, sued the Governor's Office after it would not provide him forms used to track legislation, citing executive privilege and the need for candor in decision-making. The Supreme Court found a gubernatorial privilege is 'necessary to the integrity of government,' but it also said it is not an absolute privilege, and the governor must meet 'a high bar' to keep information private. In the veto letter, the governor said HB 271 attempts to repeal a 'constitutional privilege,' and signing it into law would be contrary to the public interest. 'House Bill 271 categorically limits a governor's constitutional expectation of privacy where he is executing his constitutional duties,' Gianforte said in the letter. Democrat Rep. Ed Stafman of Bozeman sponsored the bill, and he said earlier this year that it would 'restore transparency and open government in the executive branch to what it has consistently been for at least 50 years.' In the earlier interview, Stafman also said Montana hadn't previously recognized executive privilege, the Supreme Court crafted a narrow decision based on common law, and the Legislature has the authority to overturn common law through statute, which his bill aimed to do. In a statement this week about the veto, Stafman said it allows a backslide in Montana's history of open government. 'Even as the judicial and legislative branches become more transparent, if we let the executive branch become the place where secret decisions are made and deals are cut, then that's where the public's constitutionally protected 'right to know' will die,' Stafman said. The Right to Know in Article II Section 9 of the Montana Constitution states the following: 'No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.' House Minority Leader Katie Sullivan, D-Missoula, also said Montana's governor answers to the people, and previous governors, both Democrats and Republicans, have made documents available to the public. 'But Gov. Gianforte now sees himself above the law,' Sullivan said in a statement. 'He is hiding documents from the public, battling transparency requests in court, bending the rules, and making new ones, all to hide from the people. What is he hiding?' Van Kley said it would be difficult for other branches of government to claim privilege if HB 271 became law and was found to be constitutional. That's because, according to one view of privilege, it's reasonable to expect that privileges among branches 'should be roughly equivalent to each other,' said Van Kley, with the UM Alexander Blewett III School of Law. Van Kley argued on behalf of plaintiff O'Neill in front of the Montana Supreme Court, so would speak only generally about the Constitutional issues it raised when contacted by the Daily Montanan on Tuesday. In his veto letter, Gianforte discussed the same: 'The Legislature itself has legislative privilege. Senate Bill 40 upsets the separation of powers by eroding the privilege of one branch of government while retaining it in another.' Van Kley said the veto letter outlines a legitimate view of the separation of powers, and it is consistent with the veto letter for SB 40 which claims the judicial privilege is grounded in the separation of powers. The order from the Montana Supreme Court, however, said gubernatorial privilege is among the 'candor privileges,' such as those protecting the confidential relationship between a priest and churchgoer. The order said those privileges are rooted not in separation of powers but in the 'historical and practical need of society for candor between individuals and those from whom they are seeking counsel,' including government officials. Van Kley also said the vetoes take off the table any questions about the constitutionality of the bills, and she said a citizen can still request records and claim a constitutional right to examine documents in Montana. 'The veto is not going to privilege any documents that aren't already privileged,' Van Kley said. Now that a court ruling recognizes executive privilege 'to some degree,' Van Kley said she expects specific questions to emerge and end up litigated. In January 2025, the Montana Supreme Court directed the district court to do a private review of the documents O'Neill had requested to determine whether they were protected or could be released to the public. The case was filed in 2021 and is pending. Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, sponsored SB 40, and he could not be reached for comment Tuesday by voicemail.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Stricter bail rules advance through Texas House, which had blocked an overhaul in previous sessions
The Texas House on Monday advanced a sweeping package to crack down on bail laws, setting a longtime priority of Gov. Greg Abbott's — to keep more dangerous people accused of violent crimes behind bars — on its clearest path to passage in years. Lawmakers adopted the package's centerpiece proposal asking voters to amend the state Constitution to create a list of violent offenses for which, in certain cases, judges must deny bail. Once the Senate concurs on the House's version, as expected, the measure will be placed before voters on November's ballot. But a constitutional amendment to automatically deny bail to any unauthorized migrant accused of certain felonies failed to win the 100 votes required for passage. Because it received support from a majority, 88 to 50, it will have one more shot at adoption this week. And the House gave initial approval to Senate Bill 9, which would restrict who is eligible for release on cashless personal bonds and allow the state to appeal bail decisions, leaving a defendant jailed for up to 20 days as the appeal is litigated. House lawmakers also advanced Senate Bill 40, which would bar municipalities from using public funds to bail defendants out of jail. Both bills must pass the House once more before going to the Senate, which has already passed its versions of the legislation. 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, as criminal defendants are still legally presumed innocent. Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo and chair of the House Criminal Jurisprudence committee, argued that stricter bail laws were necessary to protect the public from crime committed by dangerous defendants out on bail. 'I've never voted on any legislation more important than what we're getting ready to consider, because it holds the very key to life or death of some very wonderful people, some very innocent people,' he said, telling lawmakers about the families of violent crime victims he had spoken to. 'This is what crime has done to some of our families. And what all of these cases and so many more have in common is, they are a result of what Governor Abbott has described as a broken bail system.' 'It may not be perfect, but it's the best we could do to fix a system that's been broken for a long time,' Smithee added. 'We've been working on this for 10 years now, and it's finally time to get this done.' The House's approval of the bail package marks a significant victory for Abbott, who has made tightening the state's bail laws an emergency item for three consecutive sessions. While lawmakers have previously approved more modest measures limiting the use of cashless bonds, more expansive proposals to overhaul the state's bail laws have repeatedly died in the lower chamber. 'Of all the things I've had an opportunity to work on in my life, this may be the most important,' Rep. Mitch Little, R-Lewisville, said. 'We have an opportunity to heal a grievous wound to our state and to our communities.' Bail is a legal tool used around the country to incentivize people accused of a crime to appear at 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. The bipartisan effort to push the package over the finish line, despite initial opposition from some Democrats and civil rights groups, reflected the shifting politics of crime and immigration across the nation. The package's movement in the House continued a longer-term evolution in the state's approach to criminal justice reform, from a focus on reducing mass incarceration and wealth-based detention to increasing certain criminal penalties and keeping dangerous defendants in jail. 'We wouldn't be here if there weren't real life examples of people being released who plainly should not have been,' said Rep. Joe Moody of El Paso, the lead Democratic negotiator, adding that he was committed to addressing low-level offenders locked behind bars simply because they could not afford their bail. 'That's how the bail reform conversation started a decade ago,' he said. 'For every improperly released defendant who commits a serious crime, there's 100 low-level offenders held when they shouldn't be, whose lives are upended. We need to do both.' Top Republicans and Democrats spent weeks negotiating a package that could gain traction across parties, and they ultimately produced legislation more stringent than initially proposed even while narrowing the types of defendants who would be subject to the harsher rules. Republicans cast the issue as one of life-or-death, arguing that stricter bail laws are necessary to keep dangerous defendants locked up and to hold judges accountable. They pointed to numerous examples of violent crime committed by people let out on bond, and highlighted the stories of victims and their loved ones. Civil rights groups and some Democrats, meanwhile, argued that the measures tied the hands of judges and infringed on the civil rights of anyone accused of certain crimes. Senate Joint Resolution 5, which would require judges to deny bail in certain cases, was approved overwhelmingly, 133 to eight — winning approval by a larger margin than a less stringent proposal in 2021. That legislation, House Joint Resolution 4, was approved 104 to 35, but failed as a casualty of a Democratic walkout over a voting bill. As approved by the House, SJR 5 goes further than the Senate's original proposal by requiring judges to deny bail in certain cases, rather than simply giving them the discretion to do so. The stiffer language was demanded by Abbott, who argued that constitutionally requiring the denial of bail for certain violent offenses was necessary to rein in 'activist judges' setting low or cashless bail for defendants who proceed to commit more crimes while out of jail. But the legislation softens Abbott's proposal by requiring the state to show that a defendant is either a flight or public safety risk to obligate a denial of bail — instead of forcing defendants to prove that they are not a danger and will appear in court to get bail. It also grants defendants the right to an attorney in their bail hearings. Some Democrats initially blasted the idea that judges would be forced to deny bail in any case, arguing that detaining more defendants before trial would inflate the state's already overcrowded jail population and hamstring judicial discretion. Still, only eight opposed the resolution. 'This historic vote shows that the Texas House has decided to put public safety above party politics,' Nikki Pressley, Texas state director of Right on Crime at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said in a statement. 'This collaboration will undeniably make Texas stronger and our communities safer.' Civil rights groups argued that SJR 5 flew in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court's finding that liberty, not detention, is the 'norm,' and pointed to stories of people who were wrongfully accused and detained for weeks. Advocates argued that holding more people behind bars before trial would separate them from their communities and hurt public safety, citing studies finding that pretrial detention increased a person's likelihood of committing crimes in the future. Senate Joint Resolution 1 — a novel proposal to automatically deny bail and detain any unauthorized migrant accused of certain felonies — faced greater opposition and won just two Democratic votes in favor. Smithee said Monday that he would work with Democrats on an amendment to exempt more protected immigration statuses from the legislation's automatic denial of bail, with the hopes that that would be enough to earn enough Democratic support when the House tries again. SJR 1 includes a narrower definition of 'illegal alien' than initially proposed to avoid sweeping in lawful permanent residents and those granted protected statuses, such as asylum and military parole in place, which is given to certain family members of U.S. service members. Still, Democrats also offered several amendments to expand the protected classes under the resolution. Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., D-Fort Worth, asked lawmakers to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals defendants and those with active applications for lawful presence in the United States under the Violence Against Women Act. 'The DACA people that I know are as American as every single one of us,' Romero said, adding that his siblings were both recipients of the program. 'They know no home other than the United States of America, and they are not a flight risk.' Both of his amendments were rejected. Rep. Mary Gonzalez, D-Clint, offered, then withdrew, an amendment to exempt victims of human trafficking and other crimes who receive T and U visas after Smithee agreed to work with her on an alternative. Democrats in opposition to SJR 1 argued that the measure would unconstitutionally undermine defendants' due process and equal protection rights by precluding individualized consideration of each case to determine bail conditions. 'Immigration determinations are an extremely complex matter,' Rep. Erin Gaméz, D-Brownsville, said, arguing that the magistrates responsible for bail do not have the training nor resources to determine defendants' immigration status. 'There are immigration judges who spend hours making this careful determination — entire courts that have been carved out alone to make these very carefully planned out judicial determinations.' The House's version of SJR 1 also limits the types of offenses for which an undocumented defendant would be denied bail — from all felonies as proposed by the Senate, to certain election felonies, drug-dealing crimes and the most serious violent felonies, including murder, sexual assault, human trafficking and aggravated robbery. And it provides for a transfer of an undocumented defendant to federal custody. 'This resolution began as something that I would never vote for,' Moody said before outlining the changes made to narrow its provisions. 'On a policy level, the concept here is not offensive — if a person has already broken our immigration rules, they're probably a flight risk as well. … But I also get how incendiary this issue is. So it's a very reluctant vote from me.' He voted in favor of the legislation, but objected to rhetoric that cast all unauthorized migrants as dangerous criminals. 'From Twitter to town halls, the language around immigration is toxic,' he said, noting the anti-immigrant sentiment that drove the 2019 mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart. 'It's dehumanizing, and in some cases, it's nakedly racist. … And that makes it very hard to deal with just the policy on the paper.' While SJR 5, SJR 1 and SB 9 are the primary bail provisions this session, both chambers have also approved a measure requiring judges to produce written findings explaining their decision to set bail after finding 'no probable cause' that a defendant committed the offense for which they were arrested. And last week, the Senate swiftly approved another bail constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 87, to require judges to deny bail to certain repeat offenders if they find, before trial or any evidentiary hearings, that there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime. Its sponsor, Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said the measure was necessary to keep dangerous criminals behind bars. Little offered an amendment on Monday that would have grafted the provisions of SJR 87 onto SJR 5. The amendment was taken down on a technical challenge. Civil rights advocates, the only witnesses to testify before the Senate panel considering SJR 87 just hours after it was introduced, condemned the legislation as requiring detention without due process, and highlighted the hundreds of Texans wrongfully accused and convicted of crimes. 'I am confused and disturbed by the introduction of yet another constitutional amendment that doubles down on stripping discretion away from judges, and the unconstitutional practice of automatically denying bail without an individualized assessment of risk,' Kirsten Budwine, a policy attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, testified last week. SJR 87 has yet to be heard in committee in the House. It was unclear if it would have a path to 100 votes. 'The bail package that has already been negotiated will overhaul the entire bail system in a way that will be felt for generations to come,' Budwine added. 'This constitutional amendment adds insult to injury.' Disclosure: Texas Public Policy Foundation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. 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
18-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill for Lake County Council to review Little Calumet River Basin Development Commission moves to House
A bill requiring the Little Calumet River Basin Development Commission to submit an annual budget to the Lake County Council passed out of the Senate Tuesday. Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, and Sen. Randy Niemeyer, R-Lowell, authored Senate Bill 40 which would require the commission to submit an annual budget before Sept. 1 of each year for a nonbinding review. The bill would also require the commission to submit an annual expenditure and activity report to the council before Nov. 1 of each year. The bill would go into effect July 1 if signed into law. The Senate Committee on Local Government amended the bill to change language stating the council should approve the commission's budget to nonbinding review of the budget. The bill was then reassigned to the Senate Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy, which also approved the bill. Dernulc said Tuesday that in Lake County many entities, like libraries and townships, present their budgets for review by the council. Dernulc said he was appointed to the board by Gov. Mitch Daniels and the whole commission is appointed. 'We do have money coming in, and I do think an elected board should review that,' Dernulc said. Niemeyer said the commission oversees a $6 million budget. While the current commissioners have done a good job allocating the funds, Niemeyer said a future makeup of the commission may not be as fiscally responsible. 'They're not going to be there forever, so as time goes on, all it is is a nonbinding review,' Niemeyer said. Sen. Randolph, D-East Chicago, who co-authored the bill, said it will give the county authority to oversee the commission's budget. 'They're not going to reject or bid anything of that nature, it's just a check and balance,' Randolph said. Dan Repay, the executive director of the Little Calumet River Basin Development Commission, previously said the commission understands 'that people want to see what's going on and we don't have an issue with doing that.' The Little Calumet River Basin Development Commission manages a flood control project and works with the communities along the watershed to make sure the water stays and moves where it is supposed to, Repay said. The commission has been transparent, Repay said, with meeting videos posted to its website. Repay said the commission will track the bill as it moves through the legislature, and if it becomes law the commission will follow it. 'We're watching it, but we're still remaining focused on what we have to do here. It's not going to change what we do on a daily basis,' Repay said. The bill passed out of the Senate in a 49-0 vote. It will move forward for consideration by the House. State Rep. Julie Olthoff, R-Crown Point, and State Rep. Mike Andrade, D-Munster, will sponsor the bill in the House. akukulka@
