A proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution that would have required the detention without bail of illegal immigrants charged with certain violent felony crimes failed to gain the necessary support in the Texas House this week, highlighting ongoing tensions over immigration policy, public safety, and the treatment of minority communities.
Senate Joint Resolution 1 (SJR 1), introduced by Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston), was known as “Jocelyn’s Law,” named after 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray. Jocelyn was brutally murdered in Houston last summer, and two Venezuelan nationals who had entered the U.S. illegally were charged with her killing. The tragedy became a flashpoint in the state’s debates over criminal justice and border security.
Despite passing the Senate with the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments, the resolution stalled in the House. It ultimately received only 87 of the 100 votes needed for final passage, with most Democrats opposing the measure and several lawmakers either absent or choosing not to vote.
A Narrower Scope, But Continued Concerns
The House version of SJR 1 had already been amended to limit its scope to individuals charged with the most severe violent felonies, including capital murder, human trafficking, and aggravated sexual assault. Further revisions also removed the term “illegal alien” and clarified that the measure would not apply to immigrants under deferred action or similar protections.
“This is narrowly tailored to deal with individuals accused of the most egregious crimes,” said Rep. John Smithee (R-Amarillo), chair of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. “It ensures that these individuals remain in custody, subject to immigration detainers, while awaiting trial.”
Yet, many Democratic lawmakers remained unconvinced, expressing concern over the potential for racial profiling and unintended consequences for minority communities.
“A lot of folks are going to be tied up in this who are members of my community,” said Rep. Ramon Romero (D-Fort Worth). “Legislation like this disproportionately impacts communities of color, especially where racial profiling is already a reality.”
Emotional Appeals and Political Division
Throughout the debate, the resolution drew passionate testimony, particularly from Jocelyn Nungaray’s mother, Alexis, who described the harrowing aftermath of her daughter’s death and the trauma of attending bond hearings for the suspects before being allowed to identify her child’s body.
Supporters of the bill, including Reps. AJ Louderback (R-Victoria) and Janie Lopez (R-San Benito), argued that the measure was a necessary step to protect communities and honor victims.
“This resolution does not strip away rights or deny due process,” said Lopez. “It simply ensures that those charged with life-shattering crimes are not released to potentially harm again. That’s not cruelty — that’s protection.”
A Broader Effort Stumbles
SJR 1’s failure came just a day after another related measure, SJR 87, also fell short in the House. That resolution would have allowed for broader detention of violent suspects after a bail hearing, regardless of immigration status. Both measures were intended to go before Texas voters if they had passed both chambers.
In a social media post, Rep. J.M. Lozano (R-Kingsville) criticized the opposition and warned that public safety could suffer. “If one person is killed by someone out on bail during this interim, there will be blood on the hands of those who opposed this measure,” he wrote.
A Mother’s Resolve
Following the vote, Alexis Nungaray issued a statement expressing disappointment but also a determination to continue advocating for change.
“We wanted a piece of victory, but the fight is not over,” Nungaray said. “This is just a bump in the road. I will keep saying Jocelyn’s name and sharing her story. She was important, and she still matters.”
Looking Ahead
While SJR 1 failed, the Legislature did approve a separate proposal, SJR 5, earlier this month. That amendment would give judges greater discretion to deny bail for repeat or violent offenders. If the Senate concurs with the House’s changes, Texas voters will decide on the measure in the November 2025 election.
The failure of SJR 1 underscores the complex balancing act lawmakers face: how to ensure public safety while safeguarding civil rights and avoiding policies that may disproportionately affect marginalized communities. As Texas continues to grapple with these issues, the debate over justice and immigration is far from over.
