BILL ANALYSIS



H.B. 2286
By: Kuempel
4-25-95
Committee Report (Unamended)


BACKGROUND

     Under current law, the filing of a petition for an essential
need license (for a person whose license has been suspended) is to
be filed with the judge of the county court or district court.  In
these cases, the judge sends the person to the clerk for filing and
then the person is re-directed back to the judge.  All other
petitions are first filed with the clerk.


PURPOSE

     The proposed legislation would clarify that filing of a
petition for an essential need license (for a person whose license
has been suspended) is a civil action and that the petition must
first be filed with the clerk.


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 amends Article 6687b of the Texas Revised Civil
Statutes, by changing the person with whom the filing of a petition
for an essential need license (for a person whose license has been
suspended) takes place from the judge to the clerk of a county or
district court. New Subsec. (a)(3) is added to provide that the
clerk of the court shall file the petition as in any other civil
matter.  Current Subsec. (a)(3) is renumbered as (a)(4).

     SECTION 2.  Effective date.

     SECTION 3.  Emergency clause.


SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

     Pursuant to a public notice posted on April 20, 1995, the
Committee on Judicial Affairs met in a public hearing on April 25,
1995, to consider House Bill 2286.  The Chair laid out H.B. 2286
and recognized the author, Rep. Kuempel, to explain the bill. 
There were no witnesses.  Without objection, the Chair moved to
leave H.B. 2286 pending.  Following subsequent business, the Chair
again laid out H.B. 2286 and moved to report H.B. 2286 favorably
back to the full House, without amendment, with the recommendation
that it do pass, be printed and sent to the Committee on Local and
Consent Calendars.  The motion prevailed by the following record
vote:  5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 PNV and 4 absent.