BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 524 By: Tepper Intergovernmental Affairs Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The bill author has informed the committee that in 2024, voters in the City of Lubbock rejected a citizen-initiated ballot measure that sought to limit enforcement of certain marihuana offenses and, if passed, would have generally prohibited the Lubbock Police Department from making an arrest or issuing a citation for a Class A or Class B misdemeanor marihuana possession, except in limited circumstances. Under current state law, possession and delivery of marihuana are crimes, and a municipality is only authorized to adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance or rule if the ordinance or rule is consistent with state law. C.S.H.B. 524 seeks to provide for a review by the attorney general of a ballot measure initiated by petition in a home-rule municipality to determine whether the measure violates state law before the municipality may order an election on the measure. 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. 524 amends the Local Government Code to require a home-rule municipality that provides in its charter for the proposal by petition and voter approval of a measure to adopt a new ordinance, regulation, or other measure or to amend or repeal an existing ordinance, regulation, or other measure to submit such a measure to the attorney general before ordering an election on the measure and not later than the fifth day after the date the municipality receives the petition on the measure. The bill requires the attorney general, not later than the 30th day after the date of submission to the attorney general by the municipality, to determine whether any portion of the measure would violate state law and to advise the municipality in writing of the attorney general's determination. The bill authorizes the attorney general to extend the time for advising the municipality as such by two weeks if, as soon as practicable after the attorney general receives the measure from the municipality, the attorney general provides written notice of the extension to the municipality. C.S.H.B. 524 does the following with respect to an election on a measure submitted to the attorney general: requires the municipality to order an election on the measure if the attorney general does not comply with the requirement to determine whether any portion of the measure would violate state law and advise the municipality in writing of the attorney general's determination and of any extension of the time for advising the municipality by the applicable deadline; and prohibits the municipality from holding an election on the measure if the attorney general determines that any portion of the measure would violate state law. The bill requires a municipality holding an election on a measure described by the bill's provisions to do so on a uniform election date. To the extent that the requirements of the bill conflict with a municipal charter provision requiring the municipality to order an election within a period following receipt of a petition, the bill controls and the period during which the municipality must order the election is extended to the extent necessary to comply with the bill's provisions. C.S.H.B. 524 repeals Section 51.079, Local Government Code, which requires a nonbinding referendum held by a home-rule municipality as a result of a petition by the municipality's voters to be held on the same date of an election called by the governing body of the municipality on another question or for the election of one or more municipal officers, subject to certain exceptions. C.S.H.B. 524 applies only to a petition requesting an election on a measure submitted to a municipality on or after the bill's effective date. EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2025. COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE While C.S.H.B. 524 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 includes a provision absent from the introduced authorizing the attorney general to extend the time for advising the municipality as required by the bill by two weeks if, as soon as practicable after the attorney general receives the measure from the municipality, the attorney general provides written notice of the extension to the municipality. The substitute omits the provisions from the introduced that did the following: authorized a qualified voter of a municipality that submits a measure to the attorney general to bring an action to challenge a determination by the attorney general that the measure would violate state law; and with respect to an election on a measure submitted to the attorney general: o required the municipality to order an election on the measure if the court in such an action finds that the measure would not violate state law; and o prohibited the municipality from ordering an election on the measure if the court finds that the measure would violate state law.
BILL ANALYSIS
# BILL ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 524
By: Tepper
Intergovernmental Affairs
Committee Report (Substituted)
C.S.H.B. 524
By: Tepper
Intergovernmental Affairs
Committee Report (Substituted)
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The bill author has informed the committee that in 2024, voters in the City of Lubbock rejected a citizen-initiated ballot measure that sought to limit enforcement of certain marihuana offenses and, if passed, would have generally prohibited the Lubbock Police Department from making an arrest or issuing a citation for a Class A or Class B misdemeanor marihuana possession, except in limited circumstances. Under current state law, possession and delivery of marihuana are crimes, and a municipality is only authorized to adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance or rule if the ordinance or rule is consistent with state law. C.S.H.B. 524 seeks to provide for a review by the attorney general of a ballot measure initiated by petition in a home-rule municipality to determine whether the measure violates state law before the municipality may order an election on the measure.
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. 524 amends the Local Government Code to require a home-rule municipality that provides in its charter for the proposal by petition and voter approval of a measure to adopt a new ordinance, regulation, or other measure or to amend or repeal an existing ordinance, regulation, or other measure to submit such a measure to the attorney general before ordering an election on the measure and not later than the fifth day after the date the municipality receives the petition on the measure. The bill requires the attorney general, not later than the 30th day after the date of submission to the attorney general by the municipality, to determine whether any portion of the measure would violate state law and to advise the municipality in writing of the attorney general's determination. The bill authorizes the attorney general to extend the time for advising the municipality as such by two weeks if, as soon as practicable after the attorney general receives the measure from the municipality, the attorney general provides written notice of the extension to the municipality. C.S.H.B. 524 does the following with respect to an election on a measure submitted to the attorney general: requires the municipality to order an election on the measure if the attorney general does not comply with the requirement to determine whether any portion of the measure would violate state law and advise the municipality in writing of the attorney general's determination and of any extension of the time for advising the municipality by the applicable deadline; and prohibits the municipality from holding an election on the measure if the attorney general determines that any portion of the measure would violate state law. The bill requires a municipality holding an election on a measure described by the bill's provisions to do so on a uniform election date. To the extent that the requirements of the bill conflict with a municipal charter provision requiring the municipality to order an election within a period following receipt of a petition, the bill controls and the period during which the municipality must order the election is extended to the extent necessary to comply with the bill's provisions. C.S.H.B. 524 repeals Section 51.079, Local Government Code, which requires a nonbinding referendum held by a home-rule municipality as a result of a petition by the municipality's voters to be held on the same date of an election called by the governing body of the municipality on another question or for the election of one or more municipal officers, subject to certain exceptions. C.S.H.B. 524 applies only to a petition requesting an election on a measure submitted to a municipality on or after the bill's effective date.
EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2025.
COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE While C.S.H.B. 524 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 includes a provision absent from the introduced authorizing the attorney general to extend the time for advising the municipality as required by the bill by two weeks if, as soon as practicable after the attorney general receives the measure from the municipality, the attorney general provides written notice of the extension to the municipality. The substitute omits the provisions from the introduced that did the following: authorized a qualified voter of a municipality that submits a measure to the attorney general to bring an action to challenge a determination by the attorney general that the measure would violate state law; and with respect to an election on a measure submitted to the attorney general: o required the municipality to order an election on the measure if the court in such an action finds that the measure would not violate state law; and o prohibited the municipality from ordering an election on the measure if the court finds that the measure would violate state law.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The bill author has informed the committee that in 2024, voters in the City of Lubbock rejected a citizen-initiated ballot measure that sought to limit enforcement of certain marihuana offenses and, if passed, would have generally prohibited the Lubbock Police Department from making an arrest or issuing a citation for a Class A or Class B misdemeanor marihuana possession, except in limited circumstances. Under current state law, possession and delivery of marihuana are crimes, and a municipality is only authorized to adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance or rule if the ordinance or rule is consistent with state law. C.S.H.B. 524 seeks to provide for a review by the attorney general of a ballot measure initiated by petition in a home-rule municipality to determine whether the measure violates state law before the municipality may order an election on the measure.
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. 524 amends the Local Government Code to require a home-rule municipality that provides in its charter for the proposal by petition and voter approval of a measure to adopt a new ordinance, regulation, or other measure or to amend or repeal an existing ordinance, regulation, or other measure to submit such a measure to the attorney general before ordering an election on the measure and not later than the fifth day after the date the municipality receives the petition on the measure. The bill requires the attorney general, not later than the 30th day after the date of submission to the attorney general by the municipality, to determine whether any portion of the measure would violate state law and to advise the municipality in writing of the attorney general's determination. The bill authorizes the attorney general to extend the time for advising the municipality as such by two weeks if, as soon as practicable after the attorney general receives the measure from the municipality, the attorney general provides written notice of the extension to the municipality.
C.S.H.B. 524 does the following with respect to an election on a measure submitted to the attorney general:
requires the municipality to order an election on the measure if the attorney general does not comply with the requirement to determine whether any portion of the measure would violate state law and advise the municipality in writing of the attorney general's determination and of any extension of the time for advising the municipality by the applicable deadline; and
prohibits the municipality from holding an election on the measure if the attorney general determines that any portion of the measure would violate state law.
The bill requires a municipality holding an election on a measure described by the bill's provisions to do so on a uniform election date. To the extent that the requirements of the bill conflict with a municipal charter provision requiring the municipality to order an election within a period following receipt of a petition, the bill controls and the period during which the municipality must order the election is extended to the extent necessary to comply with the bill's provisions.
C.S.H.B. 524 repeals Section 51.079, Local Government Code, which requires a nonbinding referendum held by a home-rule municipality as a result of a petition by the municipality's voters to be held on the same date of an election called by the governing body of the municipality on another question or for the election of one or more municipal officers, subject to certain exceptions.
C.S.H.B. 524 applies only to a petition requesting an election on a measure submitted to a municipality on or after the bill's effective date.
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2025.
COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 524 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 includes a provision absent from the introduced authorizing the attorney general to extend the time for advising the municipality as required by the bill by two weeks if, as soon as practicable after the attorney general receives the measure from the municipality, the attorney general provides written notice of the extension to the municipality.
The substitute omits the provisions from the introduced that did the following:
authorized a qualified voter of a municipality that submits a measure to the attorney general to bring an action to challenge a determination by the attorney general that the measure would violate state law; and
with respect to an election on a measure submitted to the attorney general:
o required the municipality to order an election on the measure if the court in such an action finds that the measure would not violate state law; and
o prohibited the municipality from ordering an election on the measure if the court finds that the measure would violate state law.