NEXSTAR – on Tuesday morning, the vote of Texas’s house with an overwhelming majority to support one of the priorities of the supreme state governor in this session – the sponsorship reform. However, their voices indicated the desire to strip one proposed element of reform – to deny the sponsorship of the illegal people in the country accused of some crimes.
First, the House of Representatives voted 122-20 for progress A modified version of the Senate Bell 9A draft law that includes reducing personal bond options, and the judges are required to review the amounts of appointed reconciliation bonds and allow prosecutors to protest the bond decisions.
Then, the House of Representatives voted 133-8 for progress The modified version of the Joint Resolution in the Senate 5The proposed constitutional amendment that will require judges to refuse to sponsor some of the charges of felony if the judges feel that the accused is either a flight risk or a threat to society.
Finally, the House of Representatives voted 88-50 to apply The modified version of the Joint Resolution in the Senate 1And that would deny the guarantee of those “illegal foreigners” accused accused of some crimes.
While all the three bills are offered to a third reading, the SJR 5 and SJR 1 will require 100 votes to pass, as a third threshold is required to pass a constitutional amendment.
“It is not perfect, but it is a good balance” – the Democrats support SJR 5
Two weeks ago, Abbott held a press conference urging democratic support for the sponsorship repair package. However, it did not seem optimistic.
“There is progress, but not enough progress with discussions. I will tell you that … the modification version containing the elements that you set today, as well as some additional elements, I do not know the number of Democrats who have already seen it yet, so the test has not been done yet,” Abbott said on May 7.
These changes seem sufficient. The basic change was to demand the judges to find the defendant, which is likely to exceed the history of the court on purpose or a threat to their community. Judges will have to make their decision to “prevail the evidence”-probably-to infection after Mitch Little, R Leiselville, to change it from the criterion of “clear and convincing evidence”.
“SJR 5 has come long. It is not perfect, but it is a good balance that will reach the right results in most cases.” Representative Joe Modi, De E. Basso, said. “When the bill came to us, he” might deny the guarantee “with the absence of a burden on the state and the lawyer has not been entitled. He also invaded the poor who might miss the court because of things like a lack of transportation, rather than focusing on the risk of flight. I faced some procedural problems. The proposals were Golaj bills.”
MOODY, who has been listed as a sponsor of the Democratic Parliament on the draft law, says their copy is a good solution to problems at the extremist party in the sponsorship system.
“He guarantees the lawyer in these listening sessions. He focuses on not only his deliberate appearance. It only applies to serious charges and requires looking at the specific facts behind them. It is true that this is something that denies the guarantee when these things are proven, but the reality is that this really happens.” “If the state proves that the person poses a danger or a danger to the trip in a hearing where the defendant is represented, then this is a person who must imprison the outstanding trial.”
Even the guarantee project, the invitation group devoted to ending the cash sponsorship system, had a positive look at the changes.
“The Senate 5 version of SJR 5 threatened to reveal basic legal protection and open flood gates because of their imprisonment before the trial,” said the deputy director of politics in the guarantee project in a statement. “But today, the House of Representatives took a targeted step in the right direction by passing a copy of the amendment that restores critical societies. High legal standards for denying the release and right to advice when freedom before the trial is necessary to protect the due legal procedures and prevention that there must be anything for it in the field of prior abuse.
“You want to become harsh in the crime, let’s deny each on bail” – SJR 1
If the Texas SJR 1 house, they will need to persuade ten other Democrats to vote for the bill in the third and last reading. according to The Legislative Council in Texas on the informal Internet86 of 88 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for the Speaker of Parliament Dustin Burrows, R-LUBBOCK, not voting and state deputy, Richard Hayes, R-Lake Dallas, absent. On the other side of the corridor, Moody and State Rechand Peña Raymond, D-Larero, were the only Democrats who voted in favor of the proposed amendment.
SJR 1 defines an “illegal foreigner” as a person who entered the country without inspection or a person who has legally recognized a person who failed to maintain his immigrant legal status. The amendment of the judges will require the preservation of “illegal foreigners” without sponsorship if the judge or the judge finds a possible reason in a long list of crimes – most of them violent or sexual in nature.
“If we pass this constitutional amendment years ago, there were young children and girls who are still alive today who were tragicly killed,” said MP John Smith, the Attorney General. Smithee is the main sponsor of the home in SJR 1. “Looking at the rights of innocent people who deserve to protect them from meaningless violence.”
SJR 1 is informally known as “Jocelyn Law”, which was called the 12 -year -old Jocelyn Nungaray, who was killed in Houston last June. The two men accused of killing Nongharai were illegally legally citizens of the country. Jocelin Alexis’s mother was invited to the “state case” letter to Abot, where he announced the sponsorship reform of an emergency element.
“The illegal immigrants who have been arrested should be considered the risk of flying [Immigration and Customs Enforcement,]Abbott said during the title.
On Tuesday, the Democratic Parliament gathered obtained its opportunity to respond, through their voices and through a fiery speech delivered by Representative Terry Kanelis, de Edinburg.
“This is difficult. It is difficult. But there is a level of logic here missing. One of the most basic things that the judge sees when he determines whether you have the right to sponsor is whether you are risk of flying, but this is only one. The second is a danger to your community,” Kanelis said. “While listening to this, well, we will say,” You are essentially a risk of the journey because you illegally, “I would like to tell you, I am more concerned about the size of the danger you face in society. These crimes committed by an American citizen do not make this person less dangerous.
Both SJR 1 and SJR 5 to 100 votes need the third reading to pass it. If any of the proposals pass through the legislative body, the voters in Texas will receive the final statement on November 4.