Governor Abbott called the 89th Legislature to convene in a special session on Monday, July 21, 2025 to address the 18 items laid out in his proclamation. This report will examine the items on the Governor’s call.

Jump to a specific topic below:
Congressional Redistricting
Flooding-related items
Replacing the STAAR Test
Diminishing Local Control
THC-related items
Banning Abortion Pills
Bathroom Bill 2.0
More Power for the AG to Prosecute Voter Fraud
Limiting Public Access to Police Records
Vetoed Bills from the 89th Regular Session Return in Special
Moving Forward & Special Session Timelines

Congressional Redistricting

“Legislation that provides a revised congressional redistricting plan in light of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.”

President Trump has made it clear that he wants Texas congressional redistricting to deliver a five-seat pickup for Republicans, helping to protect their slim majority in the upcoming midterms. And the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has handed Gov. Abbott a convenient excuse to reopen the maps.

On July 7th, the DOJ sent a letter to the state expressing concerns that four majority-minority congressional districts in Texas’ 2021 maps may be unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered. Two days later, on July 9th, Gov. Abbott announced the special session agenda that included redistricting, citing ‘constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice. Several days later, on July 12th, Texas argued in a new court filing (LULAC v. Abbott) that those concerns were “not evidence — new or otherwise — of racial gerrymandering.” And it called the DOJ “a third party with no actual knowledge of Texas’s redistricting process.”

Taken together, Governor Abbott’s sudden push for redistricting — after years of defending the Republican-controlled Legislature’s maps in court as not illegally gerrymandered — reveals his redistricting effort as a purely political move, not a sincere policy shift.

Furthermore, it is important to note that Gov. Abbott’s redistricting push is both unnecessary and exceedingly rare. State legislatures or commissions are required to redistrict every 10 years to ensure equal representation as populations change. The redistricting on the Governor’s call, on the other hand, is not legally required.

Additionally, in recent history, Texas has never adopted political maps mid-decade except to adopt court-ordered maps or to complete redistricting left unfinished during a regular session. The most comparable example occurred in 2003, when Republicans took control of the Texas House and Senate for the first time in over 130 years and redrew a 2001 court-adopted map. This time, it’s not a court-ordered map being redrawn; it’s the maps the Legislature just adopted in 2021.

Redistricting is designed to ensure equal representation as populations change — not to allow politicians to choose their voters. This hyperpartisan gerrymandering is bad policy and detrimental to democracy.

“Legislation to improve early warning systems and other preparedness infrastructure in flood-prone areas throughout Texas.”

“Legislation to strengthen emergency communications and other response infrastructure in flood-prone areas throughout Texas.”

“Legislation to provide relief funding for response to and recovery from the storms which began in early July 2025, including local match funding for jurisdictions eligible for FEMA public assistance.”

“Legislation to evaluate and streamline rules and regulations to speed preparedness for and recovery from natural disasters.”

As discussed, Governor Abbott does not need a special session to deliver emergency funding to the Central Texas communities affected by flooding — he already has the authority to act. Under Chapter 317 of the Texas Government Code, the governor, in coordination with the Legislative Budget Board, is granted authority to transfer money between state agencies during an emergency. In fact, Gov. Abbott has made use of this authority more than any other Texas governor in the 21st century.

That said, if the Legislature chooses to take up related flooding policy, here are some key considerations.

It is incumbent on lawmakers to thoughtfully examine the response to the Central Texas flooding over the July 4th weekend and work to better protect people in flood-prone and other high-risk areas. Some preliminary reporting highlights some factors that hampered emergency response:

Building structures, including Camp Mystic, were located on floodways, which are areas in a floodplain that are closest to a bayou or creek, where water is likely to flow the quickest and is most likely to be the deepest. This could have happened for several reasons; often, older structures built before flood maps were in place are grandfathered in, or FEMA may approve exceptions to the map.
Vacancies in the National Weather Service (NWS) (some of which predate the current administration) that are responsible for coordinating with local emergency staff.
No flood warning system was in place to warn those who were asleep or in areas without cell service to move to higher ground. Although Kerr County was aware of the high flood risk and had applied for federal grants through the State on several occasions, it failed to secure funding. This is not just an issue in Kerr County, but in many other rural counties that may lack the funds to hire grant writers or the staff to determine which grants to apply for.

Although these factors are not exhaustive, and further information may come to light, they highlight some avenues the State can examine. Texas House and Senate leadership also established a Joint Select Committee on Disaster Preparedness and Flooding to investigate how to better prepare for disasters.

These shortcomings, coupled with the current administration’s intent to shift FEMA functions to the state, demand a thoughtful and comprehensive response from lawmakers to better prepare for future disasters and the growing impacts of climate change — which will cause more frequent and severe weather events that will exceed anything we’ve previously experienced or planned for.

Replacing the STAAR Test

“Legislation to eliminate the STAAR test and replace it with effective tools to assess student progress and ensure school district accountability.”

HB 4 (Buckley) was the session’s primary bill to eliminate STAAR testing, which has long drawn criticism for its overemphasis in school ratings. It was not one of Gov. Abbott’s emergency items during the regular session, and given the long-standing bipartisan concerns surrounding this issue, it’s unclear why it’s being taken up now — except to manufacture buy-in for redistricting.

HB 4 overwhelmingly passed the House 143-1. The House version would have changed the STAAR test from a criterion-based test, which evaluates students based on set criteria, to a norm-based test, which ranks students relative to their peers. It also sought to change the current end-of-the-year test to shorter tests administered at the beginning, middle, and end of the year.

As noted in our LSG analysis of the bill, norm-referenced tests may not accurately reflect declining student achievement if the “norm” is poor performance, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, if the new test scores are as heavily weighted in school accountability measures as the STAAR test is, without considering a comprehensive evaluation of schools, shorter, more frequent tests would not solve a key concern of the STAAR.

Although the Senate’s version of the bill had a more realistic implementation timeline, it also seeded more control to the TEA Commissioner to alter accountability measures and ratings. It passed 25-6. Ultimately, the House refused to concur with Senate amendments, and time ran out on the conference committee process.

Now, the possibility of a STAAR replacement is back on the agenda during this special session. Any changes to testing — which is essential for assessing student knowledge — and the accountability system should be based on student outcomes to accurately reflect school performance for families and serve as a tool for improvement.

Diminishing Local Control

“Legislation reducing the property tax burden on Texans and legislation imposing spending limits on entities authorized to impose property taxes.”

The 88th Legislature voted to provide additional property tax relief to the tune of $51 billion. Given this substantial figure, with state leadership regarding it as the most property tax relief in history, it’s unclear why it’s being taken up at this time.

If voters approve the corresponding constitutional amendments in November, SB 4/SJR 2 and SB 23/SJR 85 by Sen. Bettencourt would increase the standard homestead exemption for all homeowners from $100,000 to $140,000 and provide a larger exemption for those who are 65 or older or disabled. Additionally, HB 9/HJR 1 by Rep. Meyer would raise the Business Personal Property (BPP) tax exemption from $2,500 to $125,000 for all taxing units.

Even with this significant price tag, Gov. Abbott is calling for more tax breaks. Conservative lawmakers often blame local governments for increasing property tax bills and eating into state-provided relief. However, this argument overlooks the possibility that state tax breaks often exacerbate the very issue it aims to address.

Forcing local taxing units — such as cities, counties, and hospital districts — to subtract taxable value from their rolls may necessitate an increase in tax rates for residents to cover shortfalls for local services, including police, fire, roads, and emergency services.

In reality, extreme interests won’t be satisfied until property taxes are eliminated entirely — a move that would gut local services and force communities to rely on the state, which depends heavily on sales taxes. This shift would replace a more equitable property tax system with a regressive one, placing a disproportionate burden on lower-income Texans.

There are serious concerns about limiting the flexibility of taxing entities to set rates, particularly when the Legislature has already imposed numerous restrictions and procedural hurdles that make it difficult to raise local revenue. LSG firmly opposes efforts to impose new hurdles on local governments as they strive to meet the needs of their residents.

“Legislation prohibiting taxpayer-funded lobbying, including the use of tax dollars to hire lobbyists and payment of tax dollars to associations that lobby the Legislature.”

Several bills were filed during the regular session aimed at prohibiting cities, counties, school districts, and other political subdivisions from using public funds to lobby on behalf of their communities and needs. Lt. Gov. Patrick even dubbed one such bill, SB 19 (Middleton), as a Senate priority, although it didn’t pass. It’s unclear why this is a pressing issue now — aside from its alignment with the party platform and its potential to energize the Governor’s base.

The origins of a ban on lobbyists hired by local governments are unclear, but some view it as a backlash against groups representing school districts that lobbied against school vouchers.

The Republican Party maintains that hiring lobbyists is a “misallocation” of funds that could be going towards public services. It’s true that taxpayer dollars should serve public interests, but that’s what cities and counties are doing when they lobby the Legislature. Local governments and school districts frequently rely on lobbyists, advocacy organizations, or member organizations to navigate the complexities of state-level advocacy and ensure their communities’ voices are effectively heard.

Prohibiting these entities from utilizing lobbyists would undermine their ability to collectively champion the specific needs and concerns of their constituents. Meanwhile, private business interests would remain largely unaffected. As state leaders continue their efforts to weaken local control, LSG will oppose any measure that strips local governments of their ability to have a voice in the legislative process.

“Legislation making it a crime to provide hemp-derived products to children under 21 years of age.”

“Legislation to comprehensively regulate hemp-derived products, including limiting potency, restricting synthetically modified compounds, and establishing enforcement mechanisms, all without banning a lawful agricultural commodity.”

It’s true that Texas needs a robust regulatory framework for THC, but the hemp industry has operated without one ever since lawmakers accidentally legalized hemp-derived products in 2019. Despite Lt. Governor Patrick’s exaggerated claims, there’s little evidence of widespread harm. Given this, it’s unclear why it’s being taken up now.

Ultimately, there was no victor in the struggle between banning or regulating THC. Gov. Abbott vetoed SB 3 (Perry), leaving Texans with the status quo for now.

Texas needs an extensive regulatory framework with clear guidelines for product safety, labeling, testing, and distribution, like the version of SB 3 passed by the House State Affairs Committee during the 88th regular session. Read LSG’s full analysis on it here.

The House version of SB 3 would address both of the Governor’s THC-related items on the call. It included strong protections for minors — a marketing ban targeting children, a minimum purchase age of 21, and restrictions on retail activity within 300 feet of sensitive locations like schools and shelters.

It also would have established a new regulatory framework for the production, sale, and consumption of hemp-derived products in Texas, aiming to close legal loopholes, protect public health, ensure product safety through oversight, and boost the economy.

LSG supported this measure and will continue to support regulation over an outright ban, which hurts Texas businesses, fuels overcriminalization, and organized crime activity.

Banning Abortion Pills

“Legislation further protecting unborn children and their mothers from the harm of abortion.”

The state already has a near-total abortion ban that has caused irreparable harm to families and diminished healthcare access. Efforts to ban abortion-inducing pills like mifepristone aren’t new — conservatives have pushed them for years. It’s unclear why it’s urgent now, unless the goal is simply to rally the Governor’s base; anti-abortion organizations and lawmakers, including Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, asked Gov. Abbott to help revive SB 2880 (89R) by Sen. Hughes, a bill that would prohibit the provision of abortion pills, mifepristone and misoprostol.

SB 2880 passed the Senate 19-11 but failed to receive a vote on the House floor. Planned Parenthood emphasizes that abortion medication is a vital healthcare option, especially for individuals who lack access to in-clinic abortion providers.

The LSG will not support any measures that further restrict access to healthcare.

Bathroom Bill 2.0

“Legislation protecting women’s privacy in sex-segregated spaces.”

The regular session already saw the passage of some harmful legislation attacking the LGBTQ community. Now, Texas leadership is, once again, rehashing the “bathroom bill”, continuing its long-standing push to discriminate against transgender individuals to appease their base.

Ahead of this special session, HB 32, 89(1) by Rep. Swanson, also known as the “Texas Women’s Privacy Act,” has been filed. This bill requires political subdivisions and state agencies to ensure that multi-occupancy spaces under their ownership are designed for and only used by individuals of the same “biological sex.” It also proposes significant civil penalties for violations: $5,000 for the first offense and $25,000 for subsequent violations, with each day constituting a separate offense. This legislation also extends its reach to correctional facilities and stipulates that shelters designed to aid “females” must only provide services to those whose “biological sex” is “female.”

Legislation like this stems from a harmful and misleading narrative that portrays transgender individuals as threats, framed under the guise of protecting women. This rhetoric not only fosters discrimination but also increases the risk of violence against transgender people.

More Power for the AG to Prosecute Voter Fraud

“Legislation proposing a constitutional amendment allowing the Attorney General to prosecute state election crimes.”

The authority to prosecute state election crimes has been a contentious issue. Traditionally, this power has rested with local District Attorneys (DAs) and other local prosecutors, who may invite the AG to assist in a case. In a 2021 case, Texas v. Stephens, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an 8-1 opinion confirming that the AG cannot unilaterally prosecute cases, as that would be in violation of the separation of powers clause in the Texas Constitution.

Despite the ruling, the Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor have continued to push for the AG’s office to have this prosecutorial power. In the regular legislative session, HB 5138 (Shaheen) was filed with the intention of allowing the AG to prosecute election crimes, likely an unconstitutional power.

The House version allowed the AG to initiate prosecution if no action had been taken by the DA in 6 months. The Senate’s version removed this buffer time, allowing the AG to circumvent it immediately. Ultimately, time ran out on reconciling the two versions. Regardless, both versions of the bill still aimed to shift judicial jurisdiction to an executive office, raising the same separation of powers issues.

The LSG was Unfavorable on HB 5138 during the regular session and will continue to oppose similar measures.

Limiting Public Access to Police Records

“Legislation that protects law enforcement officers from public disclosure of unsubstantiated complaints in personnel files.”

SB 781 (King) was the main piece of legislation aimed at limiting public access to police records. It passed the Senate (25-6), but was killed by its House sponsor after a point of order was raised.

Currently, documents related to the conduct of Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) licensees, including jailers, deputies, and officers, are governed by the Texas Public Information Act. While exceptions to disclosure exist for ongoing investigations, these are temporary, and records are typically released once investigations conclude.

SB 781 (King) proposed a mandatory system for every law enforcement agency to create and maintain a confidential “department file” for each TCOLE licensee. These files would include documents pertaining to alleged misconduct for which the agency determined there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charge. Under the bill, access to these department files would be severely restricted, allowing only the officer, TCOLE, or a hiring law enforcement agency to view them. Crucially, the bill would exempt these files from public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act, thereby denying access to prosecutors and the general public.

LSG was Unfavorable on SB 781’s identical companion, HB 2486, and will continue to oppose similar legislation that attempts to conceal allegations of police misconduct. It is imperative that this type of information remains accessible to the public to ensure proper oversight and accountability within law enforcement.

Vetoed Bills from the 89th Regular Session Return in Special

As previously noted, it is not standard practice to call a special session over vetoed bills. Governor Abbott had the opportunity to work with legislators during the regular session to address his concerns. Ultimately, the urgency behind these items remains unclear.

“Legislation, similar to Senate Bill No. 1253 from the 89th Legislature, Regular Session, that authorizes political subdivisions to reduce impact fees for builders who include water conservation and efficiency measures.”

As passed by the Senate, SB 1253 (Perry) would have required political subdivisions to provide credits toward any water and wastewater impact fees assessed by developers if they installed systems that resulted in water reuse, conservation, or savings. The LSG was Favorable with Concerns, as it was a mandate on local subdivisions without a guarantee that the systems would result in water conservation.

Then, a third reading amendment by Rep. Romero was added, which allowed water utility districts to assess a production fee and repealed a section dealing with exempt wells, specifically for the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. This quickly torpedoed into a local issue with Rep. Isaac speaking against the amendment and bill on the floor. While Gov. Abbott cited protecting private property rights in his veto proclamation, it’s likely that the bill was vetoed due to the tension between members representing the district.

LSG did not evaluate the newly added portions of the bill. However, it’s generally safe to assume that groundwater conservation districts (GCDs) operate with limited resources. The Hays Trinity GCD, in particular, faces severe funding constraints — it doesn’t have access to either of the two primary revenue sources available to most GCDs: production fees or ad valorem taxes. This comes at a time when the district is under intense pressure from rapid development and overuse of the aquifer.

As of this writing, HB 33, 89(1) by Rep. Cecil Bell has been filed for consideration in the special session. It is identical to the Senate version that came to the House floor, without the amendments.

“Legislation, similar to Senate Bill No. 2878 from the 89th Legislature, Regular Session, relating to the operation and administration of the Judicial Department of state government.”

SB 2878 (Hughes) was a largely routine bill introduced during the regular session to update court structures, judicial administration, and legal procedures across the Texas judiciary. Typically, the House or Senate Chairs whose committee oversees the judiciary file such legislation to create new courts and implement administrative changes. LSG was Favorable on SB 2878.

Despite passing overwhelmingly in both the Senate (30-0) and the House (132-2), SB 2878 ultimately faced a veto from the Governor. In his veto statement, the Governor expressed concern that the bill would “allow unlimited automatic expunctions for completing any pretrial intervention program.” While he acknowledged that “most of this bill should become law,” he emphasized that these specific parts should be excluded.

“Legislation, similar to Senate Bill No. 648 from the 89th Legislature, Regular Session, that provides strengthened protections against title theft and deed fraud.”

Texas faces a growing problem of deed fraud (also known as home title fraud or title theft). SB 648 (West) aimed to combat deed fraud by strengthening requirements for filing instruments conveying real property. During the regular legislative session, SB 648 passed overwhelmingly in the Senate (26-4); on the House side, the bill was on the Local & Consent Calendar, passing 117-24-2.

The Governor vetoed SB 648, while acknowledging the seriousness of title theft and deed fraud, he pointed towards existing civil and criminal penalties meant to address these issues. The Governor also noted his concern was that the bill would create undue burdens for “low-income Texans, rural residents, and those handling family land without legal assistance” due to the new requirements it imposed.

“Legislation, similar to Senate Bill No. 1278 from the 89th Legislature, Regular Session, that protects victims of human trafficking from criminal liability for non-violent acts closely tied to their own victimization.”

SB 1278 (Parker) aimed to prevent survivors from being unjustly prosecuted for crimes they were coerced into committing by their traffickers. It overwhelmingly passed the Senate (31-0) and House (140-0) during the regular legislative session. Ultimately, Gov. Abbott vetoed the bill, arguing that it created an overly broad affirmative defense for trafficking victims, potentially granting immunity for other crimes such as murder or acts of terrorism.

However, as pointed out in LSG’s favorable analysis of SB 1278, the bill does not excuse criminal conduct but allows survivors to present the full context of their situation in court, aligning the law with the realities faced by trafficking survivors.

The Governor has expressed a desire to work with the bill’s authors to address his concerns and narrow down the bill in the upcoming special legislative session.

Moving Forward & Special Session Timelines

While the special session is largely unnecessary, the LSG will be there to analyze every bill on the House floor.

As a reminder, special sessions can last no longer than 30 calendar days (Texas Constitution Article 3, §40). Additionally, according to the House Rules, some timelines are compressed during a special session. Some key ones are highlighted below.

	Regular Session	Special Session
Committee Posting Notice Rule 4, §11(a)	Five calendar days before	24 hours before
Formal Meeting or Work Session Notice Rule 4, §11(b)	2 hours or announcement on the House floor	Same
Calendars Distribution Deadline Rule 6, §16(a)	36 hours before consideration by the House	24 hours before consideration by the House
Senate Amendments Distribution Deadline Rule 13, Sec. 5(a)	24 hours before any action can be taken	Same
Conference Committee Report Distribution Deadline Rule 13, §10	24 hours before action can be taken on the report by the house (unless it’s a general appropriations bill )	Same
Speeches limited to 10 minutes Rule 5, §28	Last 10 calendar days	Last 5 calendar days

LSG’s Special Session Preview