The Legislative Ranger
HB 160-162
11/23/2026
By: Stephen O’Toole
This article takes a sharp turn from the relatively benign bills submitted by Rep. Reynolds [D–Laredo] in our previous reviews. After reading the first of this trio of bills, I was already missing our conservative Democrat friend. Today, we’ll dive into HB160, HB161, and HB162, submitted by Reps. Terri Leo Wilson [R–Galveston], Donna Howard [D–Austin], and Briscoe Cain [R–Deer Park], respectively. I’ll let you guess which two of these bills go to rather extreme lengths. As always, I encourage you to form your own judgments as I present the facts, though I won’t shy away from sharing strong opinions where warranted.
HB160 is a bill that I consider to be government overreach at its worst. It seeks to repeal existing residency standards, explicitly barring undocumented individuals—particularly DREAMers—from receiving in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. DREAMers, as many argue, are young people who did not choose to come to this country illegally but have lived most of their lives in the United States and Texas. However, this bill doesn’t stop at revoking their access to in-state tuition. It goes further by mandating colleges to retroactively seek payment for the difference between resident and nonresident tuition for all previously “erroneously” classified terms. This retroactive clawback would impose a massive financial burden on individuals impacted by the bill, most of whom are teens or young adults striving to complete their education.
If that weren’t enough, HB160 also requires higher education institutions to inform law enforcement upon discovering a student’s undocumented status. For these young individuals, this bill could completely upend their lives, turning their pursuit of education into a legal and financial nightmare. While there are additional minor provisions, these three elements—excluding in-state tuition, retroactive financial penalties, and law enforcement reporting—make this bill profoundly harmful. I rate it as high danger and a top priority to fight against.
HB161 offers a much-needed reprieve from the heavy tone of HB160. This straightforward and thoughtful bill addresses a gap in women’s healthcare by allowing students up to 10 days of excused absences for symptoms related to menstrual disorders. These absences would require medical documentation and explicitly cover conditions such as dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, menorrhagia, and polycystic ovary syndrome, though the list is not exhaustive. This bill seeks to address a genuine need, providing students with the flexibility to manage health conditions that can be debilitating without compromising their education.
While this seems like a bill that should enjoy bipartisan support, similar healthcare-focused legislation has faced resistance in the past. Still, I remain hopeful that this common-sense measure can pass. I rate HB161 as low danger and a moderate priority to pass.
HB162, the so-called “Anti-Red Flag Act,” brings us back to contentious territory. For those unfamiliar, red flag laws aim to prevent gun violence by temporarily removing firearms from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others—often based on reports of domestic violence or other warning signs. Critics argue these laws infringe on due process by restricting Second Amendment rights without a guilty verdict. This bill goes to great lengths to codify opposition to red flag laws in Texas.
HB162 defines Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) broadly as any order, warrant, or executive directive aimed at reducing firearm-related risks by prohibiting firearm ownership or mandating the surrender of firearms. It prohibits enforcement of any ERPO not explicitly authorized by Texas law and declares all federal ERPOs unenforceable in the state. Additionally, the bill criminalizes the enforcement or attempted enforcement of ERPOs not recognized by Texas, making it a state jail felony.
The implications of HB162 are dire. By categorically blocking red flag laws, this bill eliminates a tool used to protect victims of domestic violence and others at risk of gun violence. While some may see red flag laws as a potential infringement on individual rights, I firmly believe that saving lives is worth the tradeoff. The passage of this bill will almost certainly lead to preventable deaths. I rate HB162 as lethally dangerous and a top priority to fight against.
Can we go back to the conservative Democrat now? No? Well, we’ll press on regardless. This article covered two highly divisive bills that will likely ignite fierce debate. Some readers may find themselves applauding HB160 and HB162 while opposing HB161, but I stand by my ratings. DREAMers deserve a chance to build a future. Victims of domestic violence should not have to fear being shot in addition to enduring abuse. And above all, we must remain vigilant. These bills deserve close scrutiny, and I’ll be here to watch them every step of the way.
Comments