A proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution aimed at tightening bail restrictions for repeat violent offenders fell short in the Texas House on Tuesday, halting a high-profile effort pushed by Republican lawmakers and Governor Greg Abbott. Despite strong support in the Senate and a concerted campaign by House Republicans, Senate Joint Resolution 87 (SJR 87) failed to reach the necessary two-thirds majority in the House, effectively killing the measure for the 89th Regular Legislative Session.
The resolution, introduced by Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston) and carried in the House by Rep. Mitch Little (R-Lewisville), sought to mandate pretrial detention without bail for suspects charged with certain violent crimes — but only if they had previously been convicted of, or were already out on bail for, one of those crimes.
“This is about protecting Texans,” said Little during the floor debate. “We’ve seen too many lives lost to criminals who never should have been on the streets. This resolution could have saved lives.”
Short by Just Three Votes
The House vote fell just three votes shy of the 100 required to advance a constitutional amendment, ending at 97 in favor and 40 opposed, with 11 members absent and two choosing not to vote — including House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock), who traditionally does not cast votes.
The Senate had passed the measure overwhelmingly in a 29–2 bipartisan vote, but opposition in the House, largely from Democratic members, proved insurmountable despite some crossover support.
Divided Along Legal, Moral, and Practical Lines
Opponents of the amendment raised both constitutional and logistical concerns. Rep. Ann Johnson (D-Houston), a former criminal defense attorney, criticized the proposal as a violation of due process.
“I personally believe it’s unconstitutional,” said Johnson. “This says if you’re a second-time offender, it’s an automatic denial of bail — not based on evidence at trial, but on an accusation and probable cause.”
Johnson and others warned that using probable cause, a relatively low legal threshold, to mandate detention would risk incarcerating innocent people before they are ever convicted. She contrasted the state court system’s delays with the faster timelines of federal courts, which also allow pretrial detention in certain circumstances.
Concerns Over Racial Disparities and Jail Overcrowding
Rep. Mary Gonzalez (D-El Paso) voiced concerns about the disproportionate impact such laws could have on minority communities and the state’s already strained jail systems.
“An accusation is not a conviction,” she said. “And the people more likely to be falsely accused — the people who would suffer the consequences of this — look like me, my neighbors, and a lot of Texans.”
She also warned that SJR 87 could become an unfunded mandate, forcing already crowded county jails to detain more individuals for longer periods without providing additional resources.
Supporters Say It Targets Only Repeat, Violent Offenders
Supporters pushed back against criticism, noting that the measure was narrowly focused on a list of nine violent offenses, including murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault, trafficking of persons, and crimes against children. They also emphasized that it would apply only to individuals with prior convictions or charges for those crimes.
Rep. Armando Martinez (D-Weslaco), one of the few Democrats who voted in favor, defended the proposal: “I will never apologize for putting public safety first. We’ve heard from families who have had to bury loved ones because someone who shouldn’t have been out on bond was released.”
A Broader Bail Reform Effort Still in Motion
The failure of SJR 87 comes just days after the House passed SJR 5, another proposed constitutional amendment giving judges greater discretion to deny bail in violent cases. That measure had broader bipartisan support and followed lengthy negotiations between Republican leadership, Democratic lawmakers, and the governor’s office.
While SJR 5 provides judicial discretion, SJR 87 would have mandated detention for repeat offenders, which critics called a more extreme step backward in criminal justice reform.
Rep. Joe Moody (D-El Paso), who supported SJR 5 but opposed SJR 87, denounced the latter as a regression to a darker period in Texas history.
“What’s written here suggests we should return to 1876 Texas or pre-Civil War America,” Moody said. “We should not be modeling 2025 policy on 19th-century justice.”
Public Pressure and Political Fallout
Outside the chamber, victims’ rights advocates expressed disappointment and promised continued pressure. Paul Castro, whose son was murdered by a suspect out on bond, and Alexis Nungaray, the mother of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray — murdered last summer — both urged lawmakers to reconsider the proposal.
While Jocelyn’s case would not have been impacted by SJR 87, Nungaray emotionally testified during committee hearings about attending a bond hearing before identifying her daughter's body.
Following the vote, Rep. Little vowed on social media to reintroduce the proposal, stating, “Tomorrow, or this summer, or this fall, or this winter — if I have to.”
What’s Next?
The failure of SJR 87 marks a significant moment in Texas’ ongoing debate over bail reform, which has spanned multiple legislative sessions. While the Legislature has made strides with measures like SJR 5, more aggressive proposals like SJR 87 face steep resistance over concerns about constitutionality, fairness, and the capacity of local jails.
