Texas Tribune.
La Cámara de Representantes de Texas aprobó el lunes un amplio paquete de medidas para acabar con las leyes sobre fianzas, lo que establece una prioridad de larga data del gobernador Greg Abbott —mantener a más personas peligrosas acusadas de delitos violentos tras las rejas— en su camino más claro hacia su aprobación en años.
Los legisladores adoptaron la propuesta central del paquete, que solicita a los votantes modificar la Constitución estatal para crear una lista de delitos violentos por los cuales, en ciertos casos, los jueces deben denegar la libertad bajo fianza . Una vez que el Senado concuerde con la versión de la Cámara, como se espera, la medida se presentará a los votantes en la boleta electoral de noviembre.
Pero una enmienda constitucional que denegaría automáticamente la libertad bajo fianza a cualquier migrante no autorizado acusado de ciertos delitos graves no logró los 100 votos necesarios para su aprobación. Gracias a su mayoría de 88 votos a favor y 50 en contra, tendrá una nueva oportunidad de ser aprobada esta semana.
La Cámara de Representantes aprobó inicialmente el Proyecto de Ley Senatorial 9 , que restringiría quiénes pueden ser liberados bajo fianzas personales sin efectivo y permitiría al estado apelar las decisiones sobre fianzas, dejando al acusado en prisión hasta 20 días mientras se litiga la apelación. Los legisladores de la Cámara también impulsaron el Proyecto de Ley Senatorial 40 , que prohibiría a los municipios utilizar fondos públicos para pagar la fianza de los acusados. Ambos proyectos de ley deben ser aprobados nuevamente por la Cámara de Representantes antes de pasar al Senado, que ya ha aprobado sus versiones de la legislación.
Según la Constitución estatal, casi toda persona arrestada tiene derecho a la libertad bajo fianza. Las excepciones limitadas son las personas acusadas de homicidio capital y las acusadas de ciertos delitos graves reincidentes o violaciones de la fianza. Según la Constitución de los Estados Unidos y la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, la fianza no puede ser excesiva, y la prisión preventiva, en gran medida, no debe considerarse la opción predeterminada, ya que los acusados de delitos penales aún se presumen inocentes.
El representante John Smithee , republicano de Amarillo y presidente del Comité de Jurisprudencia Penal de la Cámara de Representantes, argumentó que eran necesarias leyes de fianza más estrictas para proteger al público de los delitos cometidos por acusados peligrosos en libertad bajo fianza.
“Nunca he votado sobre una legislación más importante que la que estamos a punto de considerar, porque es la clave para la vida o la muerte de personas maravillosas, personas muy inocentes”, dijo, al hablar con los legisladores sobre las familias de las víctimas de delitos violentos con las que había hablado. “Esto es lo que la delincuencia ha hecho a algunas de nuestras familias. Y lo que todos estos casos y muchos más tienen en común es que son resultado de lo que el gobernador Abbott ha descrito como un sistema de fianzas fallido”.
“Puede que no sea perfecto, pero es lo mejor que pudimos hacer para arreglar un sistema que lleva mucho tiempo fallando”, añadió Smithee. “Llevamos 10 años trabajando en esto, y por fin ha llegado el momento de hacerlo”.
La aprobación del paquete de fianzas por parte de la Cámara de Representantes representa una victoria significativa para Abbott, quien ha declarado de emergencia el endurecimiento de las leyes estatales sobre fianzas durante tres sesiones consecutivas. Si bien los legisladores han aprobado previamente medidas más modestas que limitan el uso de fianzas sin efectivo, propuestas más amplias para reformar las leyes estatales sobre fianzas han fracasado repetidamente en la cámara baja.
“De todas las cosas en las que he tenido la oportunidad de trabajar en mi vida, esta quizás sea la más importante”, dijo el representante Mitch Little , republicano por Lewisville. “Tenemos la oportunidad de sanar una herida profunda en nuestro estado y en nuestras comunidades”.
La fianza es una herramienta legal utilizada en todo el país para incentivar a las personas acusadas de un delito a comparecer ante el tribunal. Los acusados pueden pagar la fianza completa, que es reembolsable si asisten a todas las audiencias, o pueden pagar un depósito parcial no reembolsable a una compañía de fianzas que adelanta el monto total. Quienes no pueden pagar el depósito o la fianza a menudo permanecen detenidos durante semanas o meses, aunque las fianzas no están diseñadas como una forma de castigo.
El esfuerzo bipartidista para impulsar el paquete, a pesar de la oposición inicial de algunos demócratas y grupos de derechos civiles, reflejó los cambios en la política delictiva e migratoria en todo el país. El avance del paquete en la Cámara de Representantes continuó una evolución a largo plazo en el enfoque estatal para la reforma de la justicia penal, desde un enfoque en la reducción del encarcelamiento masivo y la detención basada en el patrimonio hasta el aumento de ciertas sanciones penales y el encarcelamiento de acusados peligrosos.
“No estaríamos aquí si no hubiera ejemplos reales de personas que fueron liberadas cuando claramente no deberían haber sido liberadas”, dijo el representante Joe Moody de El Paso, el principal negociador demócrata, agregando que estaba comprometido a abordar el problema de los delincuentes de bajo nivel que se encuentran tras las rejas simplemente porque no pueden pagar su fianza.
“Así empezó el debate sobre la reforma de la fianza hace una década”, dijo. “Por cada acusado liberado indebidamente que comete un delito grave, hay 100 delincuentes menores detenidos cuando no deberían, cuyas vidas quedan trastocadas. Necesitamos ambas cosas”.
Top Republicans and Democrats spent weeks negotiating a package that could gain traction across parties, and they ultimately produced legislation more stringent than initially proposed even while narrowing the types of defendants who would be subject to the harsher rules.
Republicans cast the issue as one of life-or-death, arguing that stricter bail laws are necessary to keep dangerous defendants locked up and to hold judges accountable. They pointed to numerous examples of violent crime committed by people let out on bond, and highlighted the stories of victims and their loved ones.
Civil rights groups and some Democrats, meanwhile, argued that the measures tied the hands of judges and infringed on the civil rights of anyone accused of certain crimes.
Senate Joint Resolution 5, which would require judges to deny bail in certain cases, was approved overwhelmingly, 133 to eight — winning approval by a larger margin than a less stringent proposal in 2021. That legislation, House Joint Resolution 4, was approved 104 to 35, but failed as a casualty of a Democratic walkout over a voting bill.
As approved by the House, SJR 5 goes further than the Senate’s original proposal by requiring judges to deny bail in certain cases, rather than simply giving them the discretion to do so.
The stiffer language was demanded by Abbott, who argued that constitutionally requiring the denial of bail for certain violent offenses was necessary to rein in “activist judges” setting low or cashless bail for defendants who proceed to commit more crimes while out of jail.
But the legislation softens Abbott’s proposal by requiring the state to show that a defendant is either a flight or public safety risk to obligate a denial of bail — instead of forcing defendants to prove that they are not a danger and will appear in court to get bail. It also grants defendants the right to an attorney in their bail hearings.
Some Democrats initially blasted the idea that judges would be forced to deny bail in any case, arguing that detaining more defendants before trial would inflate the state’s already overcrowded jail population and hamstring judicial discretion. Still, only eight opposed the resolution.
“This historic vote shows that the Texas House has decided to put public safety above party politics,” Nikki Pressley, Texas state director of Right on Crime at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said in a statement. “This collaboration will undeniably make Texas stronger and our communities safer.”
Civil rights groups argued that SJR 5 flew in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s finding that liberty, not detention, is the “norm,” and pointed to stories of people who were wrongfully accused and detained for weeks. Advocates argued that holding more people behind bars before trial would separate them from their communities and hurt public safety, citing studies finding that pretrial detention increased a person’s likelihood of committing crimes in the future.
Senate Joint Resolution 1 — a novel proposal to automatically deny bail and detain any unauthorized migrant accused of certain felonies — faced greater opposition and won just two Democratic votes in favor.
Smithee said Monday that he would work with Democrats on an amendment to exempt more protected immigration statuses from the legislation’s automatic denial of bail, with the hopes that that would be enough to earn enough Democratic support when the House tries again.
SJR 1 includes a narrower definition of “illegal alien” than initially proposed to avoid sweeping in lawful permanent residents and those granted protected statuses, such as asylum and military parole in place, which is given to certain family members of U.S. service members.
Still, Democrats also offered several amendments to expand the protected classes under the resolution.
Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., D-Fort Worth, asked lawmakers to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals defendants and those with active applications for lawful presence in the United States under the Violence Against Women Act.
“The DACA people that I know are as American as every single one of us,” Romero said, adding that his siblings were both recipients of the program. “They know no home other than the United States of America, and they are not a flight risk.”
Both of his amendments were rejected.
Rep. Mary Gonzalez, D-Clint, offered, then withdrew, an amendment to exempt victims of human trafficking and other crimes who receive T and U visas after Smithee agreed to work with her on an alternative.
Democrats in opposition to SJR 1 argued that the measure would unconstitutionally undermine defendants’ due process and equal protection rights by precluding individualized consideration of each case to determine bail conditions.
“Immigration determinations are an extremely complex matter,” Rep. Erin Gaméz, D-Brownsville, said, arguing that the magistrates responsible for bail do not have the training nor resources to determine defendants’ immigration status. “There are immigration judges who spend hours making this careful determination — entire courts that have been carved out alone to make these very carefully planned out judicial determinations.”
The House’s version of SJR 1 also limits the types of offenses for which an undocumented defendant would be denied bail — from all felonies as proposed by the Senate, to certain election felonies, drug-dealing crimes and the most serious violent felonies, including murder, sexual assault, human trafficking and aggravated robbery. And it provides for a transfer of an undocumented defendant to federal custody.
“This resolution began as something that I would never vote for,” Moody said before outlining the changes made to narrow its provisions. “On a policy level, the concept here is not offensive — if a person has already broken our immigration rules, they’re probably a flight risk as well. … But I also get how incendiary this issue is. So it’s a very reluctant vote from me.”
He voted in favor of the legislation, but objected to rhetoric that cast all unauthorized migrants as dangerous criminals.
“From Twitter to town halls, the language around immigration is toxic,” he said, noting the anti-immigrant sentiment that drove the 2019 mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart. “It’s dehumanizing, and in some cases, it’s nakedly racist. … And that makes it very hard to deal with just the policy on the paper.”
While SJR 5, SJR 1 and SB 9 are the primary bail provisions this session, both chambers have also approved a measure requiring judges to produce written findings explaining their decision to set bail after finding “no probable cause” that a defendant committed the offense for which they were arrested.
And last week, the Senate swiftly approved another bail constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 87, to require judges to deny bail to certain repeat offenders if they find, before trial or any evidentiary hearings, that there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime. Its sponsor, Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said the measure was necessary to keep dangerous criminals behind bars.
Little offered an amendment on Monday that would have grafted the provisions of SJR 87 onto SJR 5. The amendment was taken down on a technical challenge.
Civil rights advocates, the only witnesses to testify before the Senate panel considering SJR 87 just hours after it was introduced, condemned the legislation as requiring detention without due process, and highlighted the hundreds of Texans wrongfully accused and convicted of crimes.
“I am confused and disturbed by the introduction of yet another constitutional amendment that doubles down on stripping discretion away from judges, and the unconstitutional practice of automatically denying bail without an individualized assessment of risk,” Kirsten Budwine, a policy attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, testified last week.
SJR 87 has yet to be heard in committee in the House. It was unclear if it would have a path to 100 votes.
“El paquete de fianzas que ya se ha negociado transformará por completo el sistema de fianzas de una manera que se sentirá en las próximas generaciones”, añadió Budwine. “Esta enmienda constitucional añade sal a la herida”.
.
