Senate advances bills on crime‑victim notices, DNA ownership, AI in health claims, firearms orders and ID scanners; votes at a glance

The Texas Senate on March 26 took up a string of bills that lawmakers said aim to clarify rights for crime victims, create a property right in DNA, limit insurers’ use of automated decision systems in prior authorizations, restrict local "red‑flag" firearm orders and encourage ID‑scanning technology at alcohol retailers.

Senators amended and passed some measures and moved others to final consideration. The chamber’s most intensive floor debates centered on: (1) a package to clarify victims’ notice and advocate rights, (2) a bill declaring DNA a property right with a medical‑research exception, (3) new limits on insurers’ use of automated systems in adverse coverage determinations, (4) a proposal to prohibit local extreme‑risk protective orders (often called "red‑flag" orders), and (5) a proposal to allow or encourage electronic ID verification at places that sell alcohol.

Why it matters: The items cut across criminal‑justice procedure, patient protections and privacy, consumer‑facing features of insurance and retail practice, and gun‑safety debate. Several measures change how agencies, prosecutors and courts must handle evidence, notices and automated decision tools — areas that intersect with federal rules and potential litigation.

Crime‑victim notice and advocate rights

Senate Bill 761, carried on the floor by Senator Hinojosa, amended the state’s crime‑victims law to clarify timing and notice duties for prosecutors and to require that certain health‑care facilities offer victims access to trained advocates during forensic exams. Senator Hinojosa told colleagues the measure ‘‘adds clarity in the time frame and communication requirements to the crimes victims bill of rights’’ to ensure victims receive meaningful notice of court proceedings and understand the role of prosecutors.

A technical amendment addressing child‑victim language was adopted on the floor. The bill passed final reading; the clerk announced the vote as 30 ayes and 1 nay on final passage and the bill was reported finally passed to enrollment and transmission.

DNA as property right, with medical‑research carve‑out

Senate Bill 315, presented in the chamber by Senator Kolkhorst, would recognize an individual property right in that person’s DNA and create civil remedies and limited criminal penalties for unauthorized use. Kolkhorst described the measure as recognizing that ‘‘our DNA is the most valuable thing we own,’’ and said it would give the attorney general authority to pursue civil damages or injunctions for violations.

The Senate adopted a floor amendment worked with MD Anderson to clarify that DNA or genetic information collected for medical research may be used for the specific purposes covered in the informed, written consent; the amendment was designed to protect vital research while ensuring individuals’ informed consent. After the amendment passed, the bill passed final reading unanimously (31 ayes, no nays).

Insurer use of AI and automated systems in adverse determinations

Committee substitute Senate Bill 815 received extended floor debate after sponsor Senator Schwartner said he intended to curb improper or opaque insurer use of automated systems in prior‑authorization and coverage denials. The measure as amended removes a blanket requirement that every claim be reviewed by a physician in the same specialty, preserves regulators’ ability to allow algorithmic tools for administrative or fraud‑detection functions, and focuses the prohibition on use of automated decision systems that produce adverse determinations without a human review process.

Schwartner and colleagues negotiated a floor amendment to narrow the scope and to carve out fraud‑detection and administrative uses. The amendment passed and the committee substitute as amended was approved on final passage (30 ayes, 1 present/not voting).

Local extreme‑risk protective ("red‑flag") orders

Senate Bill 13 62, sponsored in the chamber by Senator Hughes, would bar local governments and officials from adopting or enforcing extreme‑risk protective orders unless state law explicitly authorizes that particular measure. Hughes framed the bill as protecting constitutional due‑process rights: ‘‘This bill prevents local development or enforcement of red‑flag laws,’’ he said on the floor.

Floor debate stretched for more than an hour. Senators raised competing public‑safety and due‑process concerns: several members recounted mass‑shooting cases and instances where friends, family or law enforcement later reported warning signs; others said the bill prevents local solutions and could close a tool used in other states to temporarily disarm people judged to pose an imminent risk. Questions ranged from the interplay with existing criminal statutes to how family‑violence protective orders and law‑enforcement emergency authorities would interact with the proposal.

The measure passed second‑reading and was moved to engrossment on a recorded vote (20 ayes, 11 nays); the bill was not finally passed in this floor segment.

ID‑scanner technology for alcohol sales

Senate Bill 650, carried by Senator West, would permit and encourage use of electronically readable checks of identification at retail and licensed establishments that sell alcoholic beverages; the sponsor said the change is intended to reduce fraudulent purchases by underage purchasers using realistic fake IDs. On the floor the sponsor and members discussed technical and privacy questions — for example, whether scanners retain data (vendors testified the reader verifies and does not retain the personal record), whether rural stores without connectivity would be disadvantaged, and whether routine visual checking should still be required.

An amendment circulated on the floor addresses safeguards, including a narrow statutory defense where systems are unavailable and a requirement that clerks still visually confirm identity. The matter was reached and discussion continued; the Senate recessed before a final vote on the measure.

Votes at a glance (bills with final action in this transcript segment)

- SB 761 (crime‑victim notice and advocate provisions): final passage (committee substitute) — final vote announced 30 ayes, 1 nay. Sponsor: Sen. Hinojosa. Outcome: passed. - SB 1018 (redistribution of traffic‑fine revenue to trauma fund): final passage — final vote announced 29 ayes, 2 nays. Sponsor: Sen. Hoffman. Outcome: passed. - SB 995 (approval of surety bonds for oversized vehicle crossings): final passage — final vote announced 31 ayes, 0 nays. Sponsor: Sen. Nichols. Outcome: passed. - SB 502 (peace officers commissioned by HHSC OIG; pay schedule changes): final passage — final vote announced 31 ayes, 0 nays. Sponsor: Sen. Perry. Outcome: passed. - SB 1379 (increasing penalties for forgery): final passage — final vote announced 29 ayes, 2 nays. Sponsor: Sen. Flores. Outcome: passed. - CSSB 213 (prohibiting insurers from tying residential property and auto insurance): final passage — final vote announced 30 ayes, 0 nays. Sponsor: Sen. West. Outcome: passed. - SB 315 (property right in DNA with medical‑research consent carve‑out): final passage — final vote announced 31 ayes, 0 nays. Sponsor: Sen. Kolkhorst. Outcome: passed. - SB 112 (parental rights in public education): final passage — final vote announced 29 ayes, 2 nays. Sponsor: Sen. Hall. Outcome: passed. - SB 990 (increasing punishment for certain murders): final passage — final vote announced 26 ayes, 5 nays. Sponsor: Sen. Bettencourt. Outcome: passed. - SB 973 (posting by appraisal districts): final passage — final vote announced 29 ayes, 2 nays. Sponsor: Sen. Eckhart. Outcome: passed. - CSSB 815 (limits on automated systems in health benefit adverse determinations, as amended): final passage — final vote announced 30 ayes, 1 present/no vote. Sponsor: Sen. Schwartner. Outcome: passed. - SB 1532 / SB 1532‑style items and other agency‑process or ceremonial resolutions — several adopted by voice vote or unanimous consent as listed in the journal; see roll for specifics.

What to watch next

- Implementation details: bills that change notice, evidence or claims rules will require agency rulemaking or judicial interpretation (for example, the DNA property right and the AI/automated‑decision rules). Stakeholders — hospitals, prosecutors, insurers and lab/research entities — said they will seek guidance on operational details. - Litigation risk: measures that touch speech, property‑rights in genetic information, or limits on local gun orders could be subject to federal‑constitutional challenges; committee sponsors acknowledged potential for court review.

Ending note

On a long floor day marked by extended debate, senators repeatedly framed the contested measures as attempts to balance individual rights and public safety — a theme likely to resurface in the coming weeks as each chamber resolves technical language and as companion measures move in the House. The Senate recessed and planned return for continued floor consideration and final votes on bills still in discussion.