TexasCHLforum.com

The actual law with proposed amending language:

SECTION 1. Subsection (b), Section 11, Article IV, Texas
Constitution, is amended to read as follows:
(b) In all criminal cases, except treason and impeachment,
the Governor shall have power, after conviction or successful
completion of a term of deferred adjudication community
supervision, on the written signed recommendation and advice of the
Board of Pardons and Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant
reprieves and commutations of punishment and pardons; and under
such rules as the Legislature may prescribe, and upon the written
recommendation and advice of a majority of the Board of Pardons and
Paroles, he shall have the power to remit fines and forfeitures.
The Governor shall have the power to grant one reprieve in any
capital case for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days; and he
shall have power to revoke conditional pardons. With the advice and
consent of the Legislature, he may grant reprieves, commutations of
punishment and pardons in cases of treason.

mr surveyor wrote:In my opinion, the execution of Prop 9 will all boil down to "whose guy is Gov" at the time. I'm not sure I agree with one single person having that much discretionary authority. Still thinking on it.

The Governor cannot just pardon anyone -- with only two exceptions, any potential pardon has to make it through the Board of Pardons and Paroles with a majority vote. (This is one reason that the people who were trying to smear Perry for not pardoning certain death row inmates were full of it.)

The two exceptions that fall outside of the Board of Pardons and Paroles are treason (for which he has to get advice and consent of the Legislature), and impeachment (which it appears there is no pardon power at all).

The only thing the Govenor can do unilaterally is grant a single 30 day reprieve for executions, or revoke conditional pardons. That is not much discretionary authority.

I am naturally suspicious of anything Royce West has his finger prints on, but in this case I could make an exception. I tend the think the real problem is treating something less than a conviction (deferred adjudication) as a genuine conviction, as well as treating it as a conviction in some circumstances (CHL) but not others (pardong), but as long as that is the case, making it eligible for the pardon power seems reasonable.

Edited to add: And I notice that it still has to be recommended by a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.