BILL ANALYSIS
H.B. 273
By: Pitts
May 3, 1995
Committee Report (Amended)
BACKGROUND
There is a perceived local need for a new district court in
Ellis County. Ellis County has only one district court to serve
the population of 85,167 people, making the 40th Judicial District
the busiest in the state.
The table below compares the population, ethnicity, dockets,
and caseload growth of all the counties which have requested new
single-county district courts.
County
1990
Pop.
%
Black
%
Hispanic
Current
no.
of
judges1
Pop.
per
judge
Deviationfrom
avg.
Avg.
docket
per
jdg2
Deviation
from
avg.
Docket
growth
92-94
Bexar
1,185,394
7.1%
49.7%
19.00
62,389
+41.77%
2707
+51%
-1%
Cameron
260,120
0.3%
81.9%
4.68
55,565
+26.26%
2973
+66%
-5%
Collin
264,036
4.1%
6.9%
4.00
66,009
+50.0%
1885
+ 5%
-2%
Dallas
1,852,810
19.9%
17.0%
37.00
50,076
+13.79%
2321
+30%
+5%
Denton
273,525
5.0%
7.0%
5.00
54,705
+24.31%
1517
-15%
+39%
El Paso
591,610
3.7%
69.6%
10.97
53,938
+22.57%
2275
+27%
+12%
Ellis
85,167
10.0%
13.2%
1.00
85,167
+93.53%
2807
+57%
-2%
Fort
Bend
225,421
20.7%
19.5%
3.00
75,140
+70.75%
2245
+25%
+1%
Harris
2,818,199
19.2%
22.9%
59.00
47,766
+8.54%
2088
+17%
-2%
Henderson
58,543
8.1%
4.0%
1.46
40,165
-8.73%
2273
+27%
+54%
Hidalgo
383,545
0.2%
85.2%
7.00
54,792
+24.51%
1672
-7%
-8%
Nacogdoches
54,753
16.5%
5.1%
1.00
54,753
+24.42%
1921
+7%
-20%
Nueces
291,145
4.4%
52.2%
7.90
36,833
-16.30%
1837
+3%
+31%
Rockwall
25,604
3.3%
5.9%
0.26
96,662
+119.65%
n/a3
n/a
-14%
Starr
40,518
0.1%
97.2%
0.69
58,545
+33.04%
17404
-3%
-29%
Tarrant
1,170,103
12.0%
12.0%
25.0
46,804
+6.36%
1850
+3%
+12%
Travis
576,407
11.0%
21.1%
13.0
44,339
+0.75%
2302
+29%
+1%
Statewide avg.
16,986,510
11.6%
25.6%
386
44,007
0.00%
1789
0.00%
+2.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table notes: all figures from 1992, 1993 and 1994 Annual Reports of Office of Court Administration.
1For single-county districts, the current number of judges equals the number of district judges elected in the county. For multicounty districts, the current number of judges was calculated by dividing the population of the county
into the population of the entire judicial district multiplied by the number of judges elected from that district.
El Paso County comprises eight single-county districts and three multicounty districts in which it constitutes
99% of the population, thus the figure 10.97 judges.
2Except for two counties, average dockets per judge were calculated using an average of annual case filings (all types) in FY 1992, 93 and 94 divided by the number of judges.
3Rockwall County is currently part of one, single-member, multicounty judicial district with Hunt and Rains counties.
Hunt county is also in a single-member, single county district; Rains County is also in a single-member,
multicounty district that it shares with Delta, Franklin and Hopkins counties. This makes any kind of valid
comparison difficult at best. If Rockwall had been calculated like the others, the average docket for the county
(1000) would have been divided by 0.26, yielding a result of 3846. For a broader range of comparative
statistics, see Tex. House Comm. on Judicial Affairs. Interim Report to the 73rd Leg., Austin: Nov. 1992.
4Starr County's average docket per judge lists the total docket for the single-member, multicounty district (including Jim Hogg and Duval counties) of which it is part. An average calculated in the same manner as in other
counties, dividing the average number of annual cases on the docket in Starr County (775) divided by the
number of judges (0.69) would have yielded a result of 1123).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Countywide, multimember at-large elections in urban areas exist now only in the context of
judicial elections. Such election systems have been traditionally employed in order to dilute minority
voting strength and to deny racial minorities the ability to elect candidates of their choice. Texas is
currently defending a number of suits challenging countywide, multimember, at-large elections for
judicial candidates in urban areas.
Because of its rich history of racial discrimination and voter intimidation, Texas is subject
to Section 5 of federal Voting Rights Act, which requires Texas to preclear changes in its elections
system to ensure that racial minority voting strength is not diluted. The U.S. Justice Department has
refused to preclear any new multimember, urban district or county courts in Texas since 1989.
It is the opinion of this committee that this bill does not violate the federal Voting Rights Act.
PURPOSE
This bill establishes a new district court composed of Ellis County.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking
authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS
SECTION 1 adds a new Section 24.523 to the Government Code to create a new state district
court, the 378th Judicial District, composed of Ellis County.
SECTION 2. Effective date.
SECTION 3. Emergency clause.
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
Committee Amendment No. 1 prohibits the judge of the 378th Judicial District from serving
as a visiting judge in Bexar, Dallas, Ector, Fort Bend, Harris, Jefferson, Lubbock, Midland, Tarrant
or Travis counties.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION
Pursuant to a public notice posted on March 8, 1995, the Committee on Judicial Affairs met
in a public hearing on March 14, 1995. The Chair referred H.B. 273 directly to the Subcommittee
on Judicial Reform. The subcommittee members were Reps. Alonzo (Chair), Duncan, Solis,
Thompson and Willis.
Pursuant to a public notice posted on April 3, 1995, the Subcommittee on Judicial Reform
met in a public hearing on April 10, 1995, to consider H.B. 273. The Chair, Rep. Alonzo, laid out
H.B. 273 and recognized the author, Rep. Pitts, to explain the bill. Rep. Solis offered a complete
committee substitute for H.B. 273. The Chair laid out C.S.H.B. 273 and recognized Rep. Pitts to
explain the substitute. Judge Roy A. Scoggins, Jr., Ellis County Court-at-Law, representing himself
and Ellis County, testified for the bill. There were no other witnesses. Rep. Solis moved to
withdraw the substitute without objection. The Chair moved to leave H.B. 273 pending before the
subcommittee. There being no objection, H.B. 273 was left pending before the subcommittee.
Pursuant to an announcement made on May 3, 1995, while the House was still in session, the
Committee on Judicial Affairs met in a formal meeting on May 3, 1995. Without objection, the
Chair recalled H.B. 273 from subcommittee. The Chair laid out H.B. 273 and explained. Rep.
Alonzo offered committee amendment #1. There being no objection, the Chair laid out committee
amendment #1 and recognized Rep. Alonzo to explain. Rep. Alonzo moved adoption of the
amendment. There being no objection, the amendment was adopted. Rep. Solis moved that H.B.
273, as amended, be reported favorably back to the full House with the recommendation that it do
pass, be printed and sent to the Calendars Committee. The motion prevailed by the following record
vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 PNV and 3 absent.