[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6119301,"mediaKeyId","2712685-1c06d12e9bb084567ad01269328455dd","parentId",2712685,"title","Supreme Court justice urges statute be aligned with constitution to remove writ jurisdiction ambiguity","audioSeconds",1230,"startMs",1430000,"endMs",2660000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2712685-1c06d12e9bb084567ad01269328455dd&start=1430&end=2660","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2712685-1c06d12e9bb084567ad01269328455dd/thumbnail_1430000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6119301/Texas/Supreme-Court-justice-urges-statute-be-aligned-with-constitution-to-remove-writ-jurisdiction-ambiguity","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119301-20e97f7a4e94bcf0ad582bb481ff8324/orig.mp4?Expires=1770528842&Signature=Q157Za10dbQObt8IY6yJs979xPEAJux3wrqxvLmfNyTLsPo0j28VCSUdZlZzFB-4144BAVlHXOuAaaX5O1r3QK1bxNNxKD9ZFA7bSxAFEcvLQoetccu0HPG96fk9~uOfAkczKNGXYtZx9syFIUET5iNGasbuZ2hcm2uuRR3LTHB624oWvhqW98CTDpwM8PPHWJfdNX5Vc0CBoh0mDaHTevkM-ZDU8Iabm-bKhOgkBotdTDfonaEXCDqFkKC7jBd-jrHJneGpBWr~iuVMrvRVbHTPK9xQI2Nd6r0OT-e~9pUX61ewBmU8zl2h8TaF7Q2Pkn7rtN8VNWdg-MiCi6nVGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Texas Legislature","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","Senator Hughes introduced Senate Bill 311 and told the Committee on State Affairs that it would amend Texas Government Code section 22.002(a) to clarify the Supreme Court of Texass original-writ authority so the statute tracks Article V, Section 3(a) of the Texas Constitution.

Justice Evan Young of the Supreme Court of Texas, appearing as a resource witness, said SB 311 \"is a simple bill that conforms the text of section 22.002(a) of the government code to the text of article 5, section 3(a) of the constitution.\" He argued clarity in jurisdictional statutes is important because the present statute both \"prescribes and proscribes\" and can create uncertainty about whether the Supreme Court has authority to issue writs against particular entities or lower courts. Young told senators mandamus is an \"extraordinary\" remedy used only when a clear abuse of discretion exists and stressed that SB 311 would not change the standards for granting mandamus, only whom the writ may be directed against.

Nut graf: SB 311 would simplify and align the statutory language governing the Supreme Courts original writ power with the constitution, removing ambiguities about which lower courts or entities may be the subject of mandamus or other original writs. Supporters said the bill provides clarity without changing mandamus standards; opponents at the hearing raised constitutional and practical concerns in related bills but the transcript records no direct opponent testimony against SB 311.

Chris Hilton, representing proponents, yielded time to Justice Young and added that the bill \"does nothing to change any of those procedures. It doesn't do anything to make a writ of mandamus easier to obtain. It just clarifies that all the lower courts are subject to the Supreme Court of Texas's authority.\" After questions and answers clarifying mandamus standards and the bill's scope, the committee closed public testimony and left the bill pending.

Ending: The bill remains pending with public testimony closed; no committee vote was recorded.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee on State Affairs (Part I) March 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senator Hughes introduced Senate Bill 311 and told the Committee on State Affairs that it would amend Texas Government Code section 22.002(a) to clarify the Supreme Court of Texass original-writ authority so the statute tracks Article V, Section 3(a) of the Texas Constitution.","taxTitle","Committee on State Affairs, Senate, Legislative, Texas","taxId",16216,"location","Texas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6119306,"Committee hears opposing views on bill to make Supreme Court final arbiter of rare constitutional splits",763,581000,1344000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2712685-1c06d12e9bb084567ad01269328455dd&start=581&end=1344","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2712685-1c06d12e9bb084567ad01269328455dd/thumbnail_581000.jpg","/articles/6119306/Texas/Committee-hears-opposing-views-on-bill-to-make-Supreme-Court-final-arbiter-of-rare-constitutional-splits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119306-d2ec6a24433bb173d69009d73c427e95/orig.mp4?Expires=1770528842&Signature=B7ekJ4TNBOacdsJdT0SWaKwEC0R9pZqInhMBvVZbM70wsFskQcdNJ012jmGQrkVZl1SQcmfR7RvOZZrGL5nvdBPOzqUuMnIeqSZS2CtkNGeWqaVja73AJ1bDsVga~d3okRtHcbLNDXfe43pxl4pqW8l7g5yxe89r3jlXDgSy3-TtQOxrYRwP32r6Y6A4lARSyOgeVNOdJVwd4BMHoR1zFZvqJr4e4rAemXkt9dfK6S-2aafUyOCymL2Q-7e5qC5fWEHHYulTBfTLyTuq29a7pbe7gFbAPVbu2PpjxPS22dOJlap~Ova8fapWHgB5ePxGORhUbjd3Td0pFmI7-cZ2BQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chairman Hughes, the billauthor, told the Committee on State Affairs that Senate Bill 1210 would resolve rare situations where Texass two high courts disagree on constitutional questions by making the Texas Supreme Court the final arbiter on questions of the Texas Constitution.

Hughes said the dual-high-court system \"has many advantages\" but noted a drawback: \"in a limited set of circumstances, the 2 high courts might not agree on an issue. And in that scenario, it raises difficult questions over whose rulings control.\" He said SB 1210 would allow, in limited circumstances where the constitution is at issue, for \"the supreme court [to] be the final arbiter on those questions.\"

Nut graf: The bill aims to create a mechanism for finality when the Supreme Court of Texas and the Court of Criminal Appeals differ in constitutional interpretation. Proponents framed the change as narrow and infrequent; several criminal-justice stakeholders testified in opposition, arguing constitutional and practical concerns.

Public testimony registered several opponents. Allen Place of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association said the Texas Constitution expressly provides separate roles for the two courts and argued any change should be made by constitutional amendment. He testified that Article V \"clearly provides the creation of the Supreme Court in Article 5, Section 3\" and that \"section 5 . . . creates the court of criminal appeals and gives it exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal cases.\" Galveston County District Attorney Jack Rohde (Rode) also opposed the bill, calling it \"both unconstitutional and unnecessary\" and saying the courts are \"co equal\" and independent. Philip Mac Furlough, a judicial district attorney who represents four rural counties, warned of practical consequences, citing \"over 9,000 pending post conviction writs\" before the Court of Criminal Appeals and expressing concern that the Supreme Court could be flooded with post-conviction filings if the change allowed additional routes to relief.

Committee action: The chair closed public testimony and left the bill pending. No vote was taken.

Ending: The bill remains pending in committee with public testimony closed.","Chairman Hughes, the billauthor, told the Committee on State Affairs that Senate Bill 1210 would resolve rare situations where Texass two high courts disagree on constitutional questions by making the Texas Supreme Court the final arbiter on questions of the Texas Constitution.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6119311,"Committee reviews bill to allow Secretary of State access to DPS cross-state move data for voter list maintenance",213,366000,579000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2712685-1c06d12e9bb084567ad01269328455dd&start=366&end=579","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2712685-1c06d12e9bb084567ad01269328455dd/thumbnail_366000.jpg","/articles/6119311/Texas/Committee-reviews-bill-to-allow-Secretary-of-State-access-to-DPS-cross-state-move-data-for-voter-list-maintenance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119311-3e177b586f28383d28c736d98121d681/orig.mp4?Expires=1770528842&Signature=RCEZ2nQnfBru5JDm8~GAj6h2M4nMS~fcmq6jdRKyq9bWDWx3j1n-zV3b~WbRkaog-fPNa0ik08gaAAcbsR2oeD5iiXGstDv4Jg4NDc-WtmI3DU5LtYScwN7uPmEs~EkyDOexsNRbe2uL9-nyx7TwXoNY4KSfreA6QA6DtX9zGvztznMId1rSGrFdZyXUF01unxXAtgW7Nz5gYVBKjG6GBpCsEejn1OcjRvXu6WLuQ2s4MrOgLAYBZijYZC03nVBtbnmBpU6miVTjaz5NmieJh2qjRbyTLrAGvgA5kHEmD8~UG3wd2ZBq2-flMsqwrEARjMsrlQoQffQG7KbqIC1bPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chairman Hughes, the billauthor, told the Committee on State Affairs that Senate Bill 1470 would allow the Secretary of State to obtain data from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) regarding cross-state moves.

Hughes said, \"This does not create any new data collection. It just requires agencies to share the data they already have.\" He described the typical flow: when someone moves and obtains an out-of-state driver license, the new state often notifies DPS to cancel the Texas license; that notification is \"possibly the best data for cross state moves,\" and the Secretary of State could use it for voter list maintenance. Hughes said the bill \"doesn't alter current law on removing voters from the rolls; it just provides another piece of data for the Secretary of State to use.\"

Nut graf: The bill aims to improve the Secretary of State's list-maintenance tools by allowing the agency to receive DPS data it already holds about out-of-state license notifications, rather than creating a new data collection process.

The committee called resource witnesses from DPS and the Secretary of State to describe implementation. No public proponents or opponents spoke; the chair closed testimony and left the bill pending. Members asked no follow-up questions during the hearing recorded in the transcript.

Ending: The bill was left pending with public testimony closed; no vote was taken.","SB 1470 would require the Texas Department of Public Safety to share existing driver-license cancellation notifications about out-of-state moves with the Secretary of State to help maintain accurate voter rolls. The committee heard resource testimony and left the bill pending.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6119316,"Senate committee hears bill shifting legislative immunity from transactional to testimonial",228,69000,297000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2712685-1c06d12e9bb084567ad01269328455dd&start=69&end=297","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2712685-1c06d12e9bb084567ad01269328455dd/thumbnail_69000.jpg","/articles/6119316/Texas/Senate-committee-hears-bill-shifting-legislative-immunity-from-transactional-to-testimonial","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119316-8fc57ae9db571755236dbe6e3e680d9d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770528842&Signature=FaSupuk75Lk256ZsusvsUnBzkgu5JwSUVAqP5YBwJf7PNaTBjIDiIXiWvAvIyoeKY-ivCRshnQqOIQkqqXdyAwDVYVJr8qIi6ExZ0s9ewWGv15RjCzdOxrJg4vf4LUMNpsDXePOQyXfx0~K1udsP9KT8N27gtT9bwmd8nuood0MQmH7uNtudnIHt9ujtnr8K2lFPY1m8oZUnjFcfTS02yJqA-PAY-uokWMY94dB8XuXyfbJGmpiWnMc~HvvaNk8rgF-yetHgut~PvPqrBzdxMXg~oe3WlFHhoOqMTN9EBmIqN4BrXSc6dlvAohNghjPKCc00EWgRiD2Tj7vjnyIf7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Huffman, the billauthor, explained to the Senate Committee on State Affairs that Senate Bill 1386 would change the type of immunity provided to witnesses compelled to testify before the Legislature or a legislative committee.

Huffman said, \"Current law does not allow a person called by the legislature or a legislative committee to refuse to testify or produce a document on the grounds that doing so will incriminate the person. In exchange, . . . Texas law grants the person complete immunity from prosecution . . . This is known as transactional or blanket immunity.\" He added that the committee substitute would \"grant testimonial immunity to compelled witnesses,\" meaning \"the testimony or evidence a person must produce may not be used against the person in a criminal prosecution.\" Huffman also noted the substitute \"continues to recognize the right to counsel for witnesses appearing before the Legislature.\"

The nut graf: The substitute would remove the current incentive to refuse to testify in order to obtain transactional immunity, replacing it with testimonial immunity that bars the use of compelled testimony or evidence in criminal prosecutions, while preserving the Legislature's power to compel testimony and the right of witnesses to counsel.

In committee discussion, Huffman said the proposal is not new and had passed the Senate previously in a different form. He described a prior drafting choice that required a vote of each legislative body for committee subpoenas; he said he removed that requirement from the committee substitute after consulting members. The committee called a resource witness, Shannon Edmonds, but Edmonds had no testimony for the committee at that time. No other witnesses registered for or against SB 1386. The chair closed public testimony and the bill was left pending.

Ending: The committee took no vote on SB 1386 during this hearing; the bill remains pending with public testimony closed.","The Senate Committee on State Affairs heard testimony on SB 1386, which would replace blanket (transactional) immunity for compelled legislative testimony with testimonial immunity that prevents use of compelled testimony in criminal prosecutions. The bill drew no public proponents or opponents and was left pending.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Supreme Court justice urges statute be aligned with constitution to remove writ jurisdiction ambiguity

Committee hears opposing views on bill to make Supreme Court final arbiter of rare constitutional splits

Committee reviews bill to allow Secretary of State access to DPS cross-state move data for voter list maintenance

Senate committee hears bill shifting legislative immunity from transactional to testimonial