BILL ANALYSIS

Judicial Affairs Committee

By:  Uher
4-11-95
Committee Report (Amended)


BACKGROUND

     There is a perceived local need for a statutory county court
in Matagorda County.  An increasing criminal, probate and juvenile
docket in Matagorda County's constitutional county court threatens
to diminish the ability of the County Judge to efficiently manage
administrative duties.
     There are currently 185 statutory county courts in Texas.  
These courts were designed to alleviate the county judge of
judicial responsibilities and to ease the docket load of district
courts.  These courts exist in 74, mostly urban, counties and are
funded almost entirely by the counties authorized by the
Legislature to establish such courts.  Under House Bill 66 (72nd
Legislature), counties with minimum jurisdictional, judicial
qualifications and standards, and pay requirements may authorize an
additional state filing fee entitling the county to $25,000 per
court from state revenue.
     The table below compares the populations, ethnic composition,
and current number of statutory county court judges for all the
counties which have requested new statutory county courts.  Because
of multiple variances in jurisdiction, valid comparisons of docket
filings, management and caseload growth between the statutory
county courts of different counties cannot be made.


County
                               1990
                               Pop.
%
Black
%
Hispanic
                             Current
no.
                            of judges


Cameron
                                                           260,120
                                                             0.3%
                                                            81.9%
                                                                2


Collin
                                                           264,036
                                                             4.1%
                                                             6.9%
                                                                3


Denton
                                                           273,525
                                                             5.0%
                                                             7.0%
                                                                3


Matagorda
                                                           36,928
                                                             13.8%
                                                            24.6%
                                                                0


     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 it 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 statutory county court in Matagorda 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 new Sections 25.1631 and 25.1632 to the Government Code.
           New Sec. 25.1631 establishes the Matagorda County Court at Law.
           New Sec. 25.1632 sets out the jurisdiction of the Matagorda County Court at Law
     and provides that the district clerk shall serve as clerk of the court in matters of concurrent
     jurisdiction with the district court.

     SECTION 2.  Establishes the Matagorda County Court at Law as of January 1, 1998, or on
an earlier date determined by the commissioners court.

     SECTION 3.  Emergency clause.


EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

     Committee Amendment No. 1 prohibits the judge of the court created by this bill from
serving as an assigned (visiting) judge in Bexar, Dallas, Ector, Fort Bend, Harris, Jefferson,
Lubbock, Midland, Tarrant or Travis County.


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. 824 directly to the Subcommittee
on Judicial Reform.  The members of the subcommittee were Reps. Alonzo (Chair), Duncan, Solis,
Thompson and Willis.
     Pursuant to a public notice posted on March 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Judicial Reform
met in a public hearing on March 28, 1995, to consider H.B. 824.  The Chair, Rep. Alonzo, laid out
H.B. 824 and recognized the author, Rep. Uher, to explain his bill.  Judge Don Windle, judge of
Denton County Court at Law # 3, representing himself and Judges Virgil Vahlenkamp and Darlene
Whitten, testified for H.B. 824.  There were no other witnesses.  Without objection, the Chair left
H.B. 824 pending before the subcommittee.
     Pursuant to a public notice posted on April 6, 1995, the Committee on Judicial Affairs met
in a public hearing on April 11, 1995, to consider H.B. 824.  Without objection, the Chair, Rep.
Hartnett, recalled House Bill 824 from subcommittee.  The Chair laid out H.B. 824 and recognized
the author, Rep. Uher, to explain the bill.  George Korbel, representing himself, testified neutrally
on H.B. 824.  Rep. Goodman offered up Committee Amendment No. 1.  There being no objection,
the Chair laid out Committee Amendment No. 1 and recognized Rep. Goodman to explain the
amendment.  Rep. Goodman moved to adopt Committee Amendment No. 1; there being no
objection, the amendment was adopted.  Rep. Goodman moved that H.B. 824, as amended, be
reported favorably back to the full House with the recommendation that it do pass, be printed and
sent to the Local & Consent Calendars Committee.  The motion prevailed by the following record
vote:  8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 PNV and 1 absent.