WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HJR 201

Proposing a constitutional amendment requiring full payment of civil penalties imposed by the Texas Ethics Commission to be eligible to hold certain public elective offices.

89th Legislature (2025) Introduced by Erin Zwiener

Constitutional amendment requiring full payment of Texas Ethics Commission civil penalties before holding elective public office in Texas.

Committee report sent to Calendars
#civilremedies&liabilities(i0065) #courts--district(i0120) #courts--judges(i0140) #ethicscommission #texas(v9939) #elections--candidates(i0280) #governor(i0375) #houseofrepresentatives(v0096) #resolutions--constitutionalamendments(i0661) #senate #texas(v0227) #supremecourt(v0311) #stateofficers(i0761)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HJR 201

Legislative bill overview

HJR 201 proposes a constitutional amendment requiring anyone who has been assessed civil penalties by the Texas Ethics Commission to pay those penalties in full before becoming eligible for or holding elective public office in Texas. This would add a new qualification/disqualification requirement to state law for all candidates seeking statewide, legislative, and local offices.

Why is this important

Ethics enforcement mechanisms depend partly on their deterrent effect and consequences. This amendment would create meaningful teeth for the Ethics Commission's penalty authority by directly linking violations to political eligibility. It addresses concerns that public officials could face financial penalties while still maintaining political careers without full accountability.

Potential points of contention

  • Constitutional amendment threshold: This requires voter approval and a two-thirds majority in both chambers, raising questions about whether ethics enforcement should be constitutionally embedded rather than handled legislatively
  • Retroactivity questions: Unclear whether unpaid historical penalties would disqualify currently-serving officials, potentially affecting sitting legislators
  • Proportionality concerns: A single unpaid penalty—regardless of amount or circumstances—could permanently bar someone from office, which some argue is disproportionate punishment outside criminal proceedings
  • Due process considerations: Ties political eligibility to administrative penalties rather than judicial conviction, which critics may argue lacks traditional legal safeguards

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.