Proposing a constitutional amendment specifying the authority of the attorney general to prosecute any criminal offense prescribed by the laws of this state.
Impact
If enacted, HJR150 would change Section 22 of Article IV of the Texas Constitution. The amendment will allow the Attorney General to exercise concurrent jurisdiction in prosecuting criminal offenses, effectively enhancing the Attorney General's role in the state's legal framework. This shift could streamline the prosecution process for certain cases, allowing for more efficient legal proceedings where state interests are involved. It could also empower the Attorney General to intervene in cases that may be deemed significant for the state's law and order.
Summary
HJR150 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that modifies the Texas Constitution regarding the authority of the Attorney General. The bill aims to clarify and expand the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney General, specifically allowing them to prosecute any criminal offenses prescribed by Texas law, alongside county and district attorneys. This amendment is intended to provide a more unified approach to law enforcement in the state, ensuring that the Attorney General has the explicit right to engage in criminal prosecutions as necessary.
Election
The amendment is slated to be put before voters in an election scheduled for November 4, 2025. This public vote indicates the significance of the proposed change and highlights the role that citizens play in shaping laws that govern their state. The success of HJR150 will likely depend on public perception of the Attorney General's role and the perceived need for such a constitutional amendment.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding HJR150 could center on the implications of expanding the Attorney General's prosecutorial powers. Critics may argue that granting additional prosecutorial authority could lead to overreach or politicization of the office, diminishing the local control historically held by district attorneys. Proponents may counter this claim by emphasizing the need for state-level oversight in prosecuting crimes that might otherwise be neglected due to local resource constraints or political considerations. Furthermore, discussions may arise regarding the balance of power between state and local authorities.
Proposing a constitutional amendment specifying the authority of the attorney general to prosecute a criminal offense prescribed by the election laws of this state.
Proposing a constitutional amendment specifying the authority of the attorney general to prosecute a criminal offense prescribed by the election laws of this state.
Relating to the concurrent jurisdiction of prosecuting attorneys in adjoining districts or counties to prosecute criminal offenses involving the election laws in this state.
Relating to the concurrent jurisdiction of prosecuting attorneys in adjoining districts or counties to prosecute criminal offenses involving the election laws in this state.
Relating to the procedure for removing certain prosecuting attorneys for their policies on the enforcement of criminal offenses; providing a private cause of action.
Relating to the appointment by the attorney general of a special prosecutor to prosecute certain election offenses that are committed in an adjacent county.