BILL ANALYSIS S.B. 1622 By: Sims (Black) May 9, 1995 Committee Report (Amended) BACKGROUND There is a perceived local need for a statutory county court in Bell County. New case filings in the county court dockets of Bell County have steadily increased, and the caseload of each court is continuing to escalate. A court has not been created in Ball County for 16 years. Since that time, the county's population has increased by a third, and new case filings in the county court dockets have jumped from about 5300 to more than 11,000 in those 16 years. The caseload per judge in the county courts is much higher in Bell County than in neighboring counties. For new county cases filed in 1994, Bell County averages 5522 cases per judge compared to 2835 average for McLennan County, 2434 for Williamson County and 2740 for Coryell County. 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 Bell 198,613 18.9% 13.1% 2 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 creates the County Court at Law No. 3 of Bell County. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, institution, or agency. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Section 25.0161, Government Code, to include County Court at Law No. 3 in the list of county courts in Bell County. SECTION 2. Provides that the County Court at Law No. # of Bell County is created January 1, 1999, or on an earlier date determined by the commissioners court by an order entered on its minutes. SECTION 3. Emergency clause. Effective date. EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS Committee Amendment No. 1 prohibits the judge of the new Bell County court at law from serving as an assigned 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 May 8, 1995 and pursuant to an announcement made on May 9, 1995, while the House was still in session, the Committee on Judicial Affairs met in a formal meeting on May 9, 1995, to consider S.B. 1622. The Chair laid out S.B. 1622 and recognized Rep. Goodman to explain. Rep. Goodman offered committee amendment #1. There being no objection, the Chair laid out committee amendment #1 and recognized Rep. Goodman to explain. Rep. Goodman moved adoption of the amendment. There being no objection, the amendment was adopted. Rep. Goodman moved that S.B. 1622, as amended, be reported back to the full House, as amended, 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.