BILL ANALYSIS
H.B. 2801
By: Oakley
May 3, 1995
Committee Report (Amended)
BACKGROUND
There is a perceived local need for a new district court in
Rockwall County. Rockwall County has a severe backlog of cases.
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 Rockwall County and removes
Rockwall County from the 354th Judicial District.
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 Tex. Gov't Code § 24.500 to remove Rockwall County from the 354th
Judicial District.
SECTION 2 adds a new Section 24.551 to the Government Code to create a new state district
court, the 406th Judicial District, composed of Rockwall County.
SECTION 3. Effective date: September 1, 1997.
SECTION 4. Emergency clause.
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
Committee Amendment No. 1 prohibits the judge of the new Rockwall County district court
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 15, 1995, the Committee on Judicial Affairs met
in a public hearing on March 21, 1995. The Chair referred H.B. 2801 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. 2801. The Chair, Rep. Alonzo, laid out
H.B. 2801 and recognized the author, Rep. Oakley, to explain the bill. The Chair offered and laid
out a complete committee substitute for H.B. 2801 and recognized Rep. Oakley to explain the
substitute. The following witnesses testified for the bill:
Galen Ray Sumrow, criminal district attorney, representing himself;
The Honorable Mary Denny, state representative;
Susan Wright, representing herself and the Rockwall County Bar Association;
Holly Gotcher, representing herself;
Peter Morgan, county attorney, representing himself;
Jeff Thomas, representing himself;
J. Harris Morgan, representing himself and the City of Greenville; and,
Sue M. Pirtle, representing herself.
There were no other witnesses. The Chair moved to withdraw the substitute and leave H.B. 2801
pending before the subcommittee. There being no objection, H.B. 2801 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. 2801 from subcommittee. The Chair laid out H.B. 2801 and explained the bill.
Rep. Alonzo offered committee amendment #1. There being no objection, the Chair laid out
committee amendment #1 and recognized Rep. Alonzo to explain the amendment. Rep. Alonzo
moved adoption of the amendment. There being no objection, the amendment was adopted. Rep.
Solis moved that H.B. 2801, 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.