Texas House Bill HJR129

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/10/11
• Refer: 3/23/11

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment requiring a state senator or state representative to forfeit office on the final conviction of a felony.

Impact

The introduction of this amendment carries significant implications for state laws regarding the qualifications and ongoing eligibility of elected officials. By requiring immediate forfeiture of office, HJR129 would create a more stringent standard for state legislators, emphasizing ethical governance and public service integrity. The passage of this amendment would necessitate mechanisms for promptly filling any vacated offices, as outlined in Section 13 of Article III, thereby ensuring continuity in governance.

Summary

HJR129 proposes a constitutional amendment to the Texas Constitution that mandates the immediate forfeiture of legislative office for any state senator or representative upon final conviction of a felony. The bill aims to strengthen accountability among elected officials, ensuring that individuals convicted of serious crimes cannot hold office, thereby preserving the integrity of the legislature. If enacted, this amendment would alter Article III of the Texas Constitution by adding a new section specifically addressing this issue.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HJR129 appears generally supportive among legislators who prioritize accountability and transparency in government. Advocates of the bill argue that it reflects a proactive approach to maintaining ethical standards for elected officials, ensuring they are held accountable for their actions. However, there may be concerns regarding the implications of such an amendment, particularly the potential impact on legislative stability and the processes for filling vacancies in the legislature, which could provoke some opposition.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the interpretation of what constitutes a 'final conviction' and how this stipulation affects the due process rights of lawmakers. Additionally, while proponents stress the importance of accountability, critics might voice concerns about the potential for political weaponization of the amendment against opponents. This debate underscores the broader issues of ethics in government and the balance between maintaining public trust and ensuring fair governance.