Texas House bill would weaken renters' rights, advocates say
House Bill 32 would speed up the state's eviction process, make it easier for landlords to find judges who will side with them in eviction cases and make it harder for low-income tenants to obtain legal assistance, opponents of the bill said. If lawmakers enact the proposal, it's possible that tenants could get evicted without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom or knowing there was ever a case against them, they said.
'There is nothing lawful or fair about this bill at all,' Mark Melton, an attorney who leads the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center, told members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence committee. 'In fact, it is extremely and obviously unconstitutional.'
The legislation — filed by state Rep. Angie Chen Button, a Garland Republican — is part of a push to help property owners deal with squatters, or people who illegally occupy a property. Property owners and landlord groups have told lawmakers that landlords have had increased run-ins with squatters, but existing laws and procedures are insufficient to help boot them from their property, costing them thousands upon thousands of dollars in the process. The state's top three Republican officials — Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dustin Burrows — have said that legislation to crack down on squatting is a top priority during this year's legislative session.
House Bill 32 'is not about punishing anyone,' Button told the committee. 'It is about providing justice to the property owner and giving their property back.'
Landlord groups in Texas see the bill as a vehicle not just to address squatting but to curtail state laws they say can trip up landlords when seeking an eviction — which landlords say they view as a last resort after efforts to resolve issues with their tenants have failed. Chris Newton, Texas Apartment Association executive vice president, said in a statement that 'squatting is a symptom of a broader problem — an eviction process that can be slow and inefficient.'
'For too long, inefficiencies in Texas' civil eviction process have led to delays that embolden those who unlawfully occupy properties and leave property owners struggling to regain control of their property,' Newton said. 'These delays reduce housing availability and affordability while jeopardizing the safety of residents and staff.'
Opponents of the bill argue that cases of squatting are rare, and that Button's proposal wouldn't help property owners in those cases. Instead, they said, the bill would weaken the state's already meager legal protections for the state's 4.2 million renter households — a growing number of whom have faced increased pressure from rising rents.
Legal aid lawyers, housing advocates and justices of the peace, the judges who handle eviction cases, told lawmakers that the proposal would deprive tenants of due process. An eviction can remain on a tenant's record for up to seven years, making it exceedingly difficult to find housing because landlords tend to reject applicants with an eviction on their record.
Button's bill aims to accelerate the eviction process in a number of ways.
State law requires landlords to give tenants written notice three days before they file for eviction. If passed, the bill would loosen rules for how landlords may deliver that notice to tenants. The proposal would only require landlords to give that notice in cases where tenants have fallen behind on rent. Housing advocates fear landlords would circumvent that requirement in nonpayment cases by ginning up other reasons to file for eviction.
The bill would give landlords an avenue to obtain an eviction judgment without going to trial. Landlords could seek an automatic ruling in their favor without a hearing if there are 'no genuinely disputed facts' in the case. Tenants would only have three days to respond before a judge issues a ruling. Legal aid lawyers and housing advocates doubt renters, especially those who don't regularly interact with the legal system, could realistically respond in time.
If tenants lose their eviction case, they would have fewer days to file an appeal before they're removed from the home.
'These are unsophisticated, poor people,' Melton said. 'They're never going to figure out how to file an affidavit in three days to respond. That's never going to happen. And that's why they drafted this way. Everybody knows that.'
Some Republicans on the panel appeared uneasy that existing state law could be allowing tenants to remain in place if they're not paying rent, though they expressed willingness to see changes to the legislation that would work out common ground between landlords and tenants.
'I don't believe anyone on this committee or anyone that we're going to hear from today wants a complete denial of due process,' said state Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican who chairs the committee.
The bill would allow landlords to file their case in neighboring precincts, a measure intended to enable landlords to seek rulings from judges seen as more favorable.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, some judges have placed additional scrutiny on landlords who bring evictions and taken extra steps to give renters access to legal representation — often a deciding factor in whether a tenant avoids eviction.
Research shows tenants are less likely to show up to court for their hearing if it's further away, and thus are more likely to lose their case. If a tenant doesn't show up, they wouldn't obtain legal representation that would help them avoid eviction, tenant advocates said.
Housing advocates and legal aid lawyers predicted such a move would backfire on landlords — in fact slow down the eviction process because landlords would clog some courts with a glut of eviction cases and create a backlog.
The bill also aims to require cities and counties that use public funds to provide legal assistance to tenants to also put up dollars to relocate tenants — a move that legal aid attorneys and local officials said would make it prohibitive to provide legal assistance to tenants.
Dallas County recently began providing funds to the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center in a bid to tackle homelessness in the region, Commissioner Andy Sommerman said.
'By accelerating this notion of being able to be evicted so quickly, it will definitely decrease our ability to handle that homelessness,' Sommerman said.
Lawmakers implored landlord and legal aid groups to hash out their differences and find middle ground to alter the proposal. There was already some agreement, for example, that legislators could perhaps find ways to speed up the process of returning possession of rental properties to owners after they win their case.
State lawmakers have filed separate bills this year aimed at increasing criminal penalties for alleged squatters. But those cases are rare, said Judge Adam Swartz, a Dallas County justice of the peace. Swartz told lawmakers his court sees a 'handful' of squatter cases out of some 8,000 eviction cases each year.
'This bill seems like trying to kill a mosquito with a shotgun,' Swartz said.
Disclosure: Texas Apartment Association has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
We can't wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.
Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
If you've ever suffered from that nagging feeling that the Legislature is systematically trying to undermine your right to petition something onto the ballot, you're not alone. I've had it, too. We need to start trusting that gut feeling. It turns out we weren't wrong. That's exactly what the Republican majority in the Legislature has been trying to do. It has just been proven by three authors of a South Dakota Law Review article: 'Have Recent Legislative Changes in South Dakota Made Using the Initiated Measure Process More Difficult?' It seems the answer to the question in the title of the article is yes, and how. You can find the article on the Law Review's website. Be warned: at 40-some pages, it's not an easy read. There are footnotes strewn about and readers may struggle with some of the world's ugliest charts. However it still tells a compelling tale of how, since 2017, the Republican super-majority in the Legislature has been whittling away at the rights of citizens to petition measures onto the ballot. Republicans may scoff at the article as so much whining from the left as two of the authors are well-known Democrats: activist Cory Heidelberger and former State Sen. Reynold Nesiba. While a Republican byline would have been nice for the sake of balance, there's no disputing the truth of the facts they have compiled. These bills were filed and are there for anyone to look up. Their paper gets particularly interesting when it goes about listing the Legislature's 14 worst bills designed to cut back the rights of citizens to petition an initiative onto the ballot. Those range from insisting on a larger font size on petitions to make them unwieldy, to allowing petition signers to later withdraw their names after the petition has been submitted, and a couple of attempts to raise the vote total needed for passage of the initiative beyond a simple majority. Some of these attacks on our rights were defeated at the ballot box; some were challenged in court where they fell short of being entirely constitutional. Sadly, some were enacted into law. At least now, through the work of the article's authors, the grim history of the war on ballot initiatives in South Dakota is summed up in one place. Unfortunately, while that history has been chronicled, the siege still continues. The authors go on to mention seven petition-related bills and five constitutional amendments submitted in the 2025 legislative session, 10 of which, they say, sought to curtail the rights of citizens to initiate ballot measures. When legislators want to amend the state constitution themselves, they have to convince a majority of their colleagues to send the amendment to voters. This legislative quest to get on the 2026 ballot through constitutional amendments comes from the same party that tries to curtail voter access to the petition process by claiming that voters have ballot fatigue with so many issues to decide on Election Day. This ignores the fact that in each case, more than 17,000 South Dakotans applied their signatures to petitions, a sure sign that there are plenty of people who think the ballot issue is something that should go before voters. This years-long attempt to curtail the initiative process is nothing more than a means for the Republican super-majority to solidify its power by cutting off people they don't agree with from access to the ballot. Republican efforts aren't trying to make the process better or more secure. They're just tired of beating back attempts to legalize marijuana and abortion. The irony here is that in the Statehouse, no piece of legislation is ever blocked. Sure, there may be some arm-twisting that could lead to a bill being tabled or withdrawn, but each bill is handled in the light of day. These same Republicans who are so upright and transparent with legislation are working overtime to have darkness descend on the ballot box. Their attempts to slow or stop citizen access to the ballot initiative process is a sign of the power that citizens wield. The recent law journal article has proven that this notion that our rights are under attack is more than just a gut feeling. We now have a historic record that spells out the way Republicans have been trying to take away the power of citizens to petition their government. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Advertisement Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. Advertisement 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' The Port of Baltimore on June 30, 2025. ALYSSA SCHUKAR/NYT Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. Advertisement 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Workers welded steel components together at a Thomas Built Buses plant in High Point, N.C., on July 21, 2025. TRAVIS DOVE/NYT Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. Advertisement 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in
