BILL ANALYSIS H.B. 3196 By: Moreno C.S.H.B. 3196 By: Solis 4-25-95 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND Unlike Justices of the Peace, District and County Court at Law Judges are not statutorily entitled to receive a fee for the performance of a marriage ceremony. Nevertheless, State District and County Court at Law Judges throughout Texas have traditionally performed marriages and accepted a marriage fee, generally not in excess of $25.00. Judges became concerned with this issue when Section 36.07 of the Texas Penal Code was enacted into law, which prohibits a public servant from accepting honorariums in consideration for certain services performed. However, Sec. 1.83 of the Texas Family Code specifically names a district judge as one of the many persons who are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony. Initially, several Judges sought to distinguish a fee from an honorarium, and thereby continue the collection of marriage fees. Other Judges have simply informed a couple seeking to be married that they do not charge a fee, but would accept any amount of gratuity which the couple wished to give to the Judge who would be performing the marriage ceremony. In the city of El Paso, the former District Attorney and the former County Attorney both issued opinions upon request, which allowed State District and County Court at Law Judges to charge and accept a fee for the performance of the marriage ceremony. The current District Attorney has indicated he has serious reservations about the practice. In addition, the four newest members of the El Paso judiciary who attended the most recent "Baby Judges School" were informed by various instructors that the collection of a fee for the performance of marriage ceremonies was strictly prohibited by both the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. PURPOSE The purpose of this legislation is to statutorily grant a judge or justice who performs a marriage ceremony under Section 1.83, Family Code, the authority to charge and collect a fee for that service. 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 Section 21.003 to the Government Code to allow judges and justices who perform marriage ceremonies under Section 1.83, Family Code, to charge and collect a fee for that service. SECTION 2 adds a new Subsection (d) to Tex. Penal Code § 36.07 to exempt said judges from penalties under 36.07, Penal Code. SECTION 3. Effective date. SECTION 4. Emergency clause. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE Section 1 of the original allowed a judge or justice to charge and collect a fee for performing a marriage ceremony. Section 1 of the substitute changed the language to allow a judge or justice to receive a fee, commission or payment for performing a marriage ceremony. Section 2 of the original provided an exception to Tex. Penal Code § 36.07 by making it inapplicable to a judge or justice who charged or collected a fee for performing a marriage ceremony. Section 2 of the substitute changes the language to make Sec. 36.07 inapplicable to a judge or justice who receives a fee, commission or payment for performing a marriage ceremony. Sections 3 and 4 are the same in both originals. 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 H.B. 3196. The Chair laid out H.B. 3196 and recognized the author, Rep. Moreno, to explain. Rep. Solis offered a complete committee substitute. There being no objection, the Chair laid out C.S.H.B. 3196 and recognized Rep. Moreno to explain. Philip Martinez, representing himself, testified for C.S.H.B. 3196. There being no other witnesses, the Chair moved adoption of the substitute. There being no objection, the substitute was adopted. Rep. Solis moved that H.B. 3196, as substituted, 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: 5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 PNV and 4 absent.