BILL ANALYSIS
H.B. 1774
By: Oliveira
4-11-95
Committee Report (Amended)
BACKGROUND
There is a perceived local need for a new statutory county
court in Cameron County. The district courts in Cameron County
handle cases dealing with juvenile and family law matters. These
cases are extremely time consuming and could be more efficiently
processed in a court specializing in these matters. The dockets of
the district courts and the county courts at law in Cameron County
are extremely overcrowded. The county courts at law have a backlog
of nearly 11,000 cases pending as of the end of the last fiscal
year. The backlog is steadily increasing at a rate of 2,324 cases
over the last year.
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 Cameron County and changes the
jurisdiction of the statutory county courts in Cameron 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 Section 25.0331(a)(3), Government Code, to establish County Court
at Law No. 3 in Cameron County.
SECTION 2 amends Section 25.0332(a), Government Code, granting concurrent jurisdiction
in family law and juvenile cases and deleting probate jurisdiction.
SECTION 3 adds new Section 25.0332(b), Government Code, allowing the district court to
transfer any family, civil or juvenile matter to the statutory county court.
SECTION 4 amends Section 25.0332(j) to allow the district clerk to serve as county clerk
for all county family, civil and juvenile matters.
SECTION 5 amends Section 25.0332(k) to make a conforming change, allowing the sheriff
to attend all county courts at law in Cameron County.
SECTION 6. Effective date.
SECTION 7. 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. 1774 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. 1774. The Chair, Rep. Alonzo, laid out
H.B. 1774 and recognized Rep. Solis to explain the bill. There were no witnesses to testify for,
against or neutrally on the bill. Without objection, the Chair left H.B. 1774 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. 1774. Without objection, the Chair, Rep.
Hartnett, recalled House Bill 1774 from subcommittee. The Chair laid out H.B. 1774 and recognized
George Korbel, representing himself, to testify neutrally on H.B. 1774. The Chair then recognized
the author, Rep. Oliveira, to explain the bill. 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. 1774, 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: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 PNV and 2 absent.