BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 5116

By: Shaheen

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Currently, the governor may not declare the official result of an election contest of a proposed constitutional amendment until the contest is resolved. The bill author has informed the committee that it can take well over a year for such a contest to be decided. C.S.H.B. 5116 seeks to resolve these issues by establishing deadlines by which a trial court presiding over an election contest must hold a preliminary hearing on the merits of the constitutional amendment election contest and issue a final judgement.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 5116 amends the Election Code to establish that the filing of an election contest does not suspend implementation of a constitutional amendment that was approved by the majority of the votes cast unless the contestant can show the following at a hearing held not later than the 30th day after the date the election contest was filed:

· a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;

· irreparable harm to the contestant or to the citizens of Texas if the court permits the implementation of the constitutional amendment and that such harm will outweigh the harm to the state that will occur if the court permits the implementation to be enjoined; and

· enjoining implementation is in the best interest of the public.

C.S.H.B. 5116 requires a trial court to do the following:

· ensure that a written ruling on a pretrial motion before the court is entered not later than the 30th day after the date the motion is filed; and

· ensure the judgment of the court is not filed later than the 180th day after the date of the contested election.

The bill clarifies that an order included in a court's judgment in a contest directs the governor to declare the election as valid or void, as appropriate. The bill changes the deadline by which the appellate court is required to ensure that an action is brought to final disposition if a contestant files an appeal of the contest from the 180th day after the date the judgment becomes final to the 60th day after that date.

C.S.H.B. 5116 removes provisions that do the following:

· prohibit the declaration of the official result of a contested election from being made until the contest is finally determined;

· require the secretary of state to tabulate the county returns and the governor to announce the final vote count, as ascertained from the returns, in a written document;

· require the document announcing the final vote count to state that a contest of the election has been filed and that the declaration of the official result will not be made until the contest is finally determined; and

· prohibit a trial date from being later than the 180th day after the date of the contested election.

The bill applies only to a contest of a constitutional amendment election filed on or after the bill's effective date. A contest of a constitutional amendment election filed before the bill's effective date is governed by the law in effect on the date that the suit is filed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2025.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 5116 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

The substitute omits the provisions of the introduced that amended the Civil Practice and Remedies Code to do the following:

· establish, for the purposes of Texas Constitution provisions relating to removal of a judge, that a judge who is noncompliant with the requirements under Election Code provisions relating to the special procedures for a contest of an election on a proposed constitutional amendment has engaged in wilful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of the judge's duties sufficient to subject the judge to removal from office; and

· require the attorney general or the county or district attorney of the appropriate county to petition the appropriate court to file an information in the nature of quo warranto against a judge who is subject to removal for such noncompliance if presented with evidence establishing probable cause that the judge engaged in conduct sufficient to subject the judge to removal from office.