LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
74th Regular Session
March 6, 1995
TO: Honorable Don Henderson, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 313
Committee on Jurisprudence By: Ellis
Senate
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on Senate Bill No.
313 (relating to the appointment of appellate justices and
judges, to the nonpartisan election of district judges, to the
retention or rejection of district and appellate judges, and to
the creation of certain judicial districts) this office has
determined the following:
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal
basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions
of the bill.
The bill would subject appellate court justices and judges to
retention or rejection elections at the last general election for
state and county officers prior to the date the justice's or
judge's term expires. If an appellate court justice or judge
does not seek retention or withdraws from the retention election,
the vacancy would be filled in the regular manner by
gubernatorial appointment.
The bill would require the district judges of the judicial
districts composed entirely of a county with a population of more
than one million to be elected from each commissioners court
precinct in a county. The bill would require the office of
district judge to be filled at the nonpartisan judicial election
established by the bill, except in the cases of a vacancy filled
by appointment or an incumbent judge seeking retention.
The bill would create the 378th Judicial District to be composed
of Bexar County, the 379th, 380th and 381st judicial districts to
be composed of Dallas County and the 382nd Judicial District to
be composed of Harris County. The bill would also create three
new judicial districts to serve Tarrant County, the 383rd, 384th
and 385th.
The bill would delete filing fees for judicial candidates subject
to the current general primary election and would establish
filing fees for nonpartisan judicial candidates to be collected
by the Secretary of State and deposited into the General Revenue
Fund. The bill would set the filing fee for a district judge,
criminal district judge or family district judge at $1,200. The
bill would set the filing fees for a district or criminal
district judge of a court in a judicial district wholly contained
in a county with a population of more than 1 million at $2,000.
The bill would eliminate filing fees for appellate court justices
and judges since they would not be subject to nonpartisan
judicial election under the bill.
The bill would result in a revenue gain to the state from filing
fees for nonpartisan judicial candidates which would be deposited
into the General Revenue Fund.
Additional revenue from filing fees for district judges cannot be
estimated because the bill would allow a judge to stand for
retention for two continuous terms before the office is filled at
the nonpartisan judicial election. It is not known how many
vacancies will occur or which judges will decline to run for
retention.
The fiscal impact of deleting the fee for appellate court
justices and judges, who would no longer have to run for office,
cannot be determined because the number of candidates running in
the future cannot be predicted. The filing fees are currently
deposited into local primary funds.
The bill would result in a cost to the Secretary of State to
administer the provisions of the bill and from eliminating filing
fees for judicial candidates subject to the general primary
election. These filing fees are deposited into local primary
funds and are used to offset the state's general revenue cost to
administer primary elections.
The Secretary of State must compile information, contract for
preparation and publishing, and mail a voter information pamphlet
containing information about the candidates whose names will
appear on the nonpartisan judicial election ballot. The
Secretary of State may prepare and print the voter information
pamphlet if the secretary determines that the cost of the
preparation or printing are less than or equal to the most
reasonable bid submitted. The Secretary of State must mail the
pamphlet to every household in the state in which a registered
voter resides. The cost to the general revenue fund for printing
and distribution of the candidate pamphlets for the eight new
courts which will be on the nonpartisan ballot would be
approximately $2.5 million. If all candidates ran on the
nonpartisan election ballot, the cost for printing and mailing
the pamphlet would be approximately $21 million.
The bill would create eight district courts with first year costs
ranging from $510,600 to $2,633,300. The fiscal implications to
the state for the salaries and benefits for the eight new judges
are included in the table below.
Dallas County would incur the cost of three district courts with
unspecified jurisdiction. Each district court's expenses,
including personnel, salaries and benefits, a judge's
supplementary salary, operating costs and indirect costs is
expected to total approximately $1,100,000 annually.
Harris County would incur the cost of one district court with
unspecified jurisdiction. If the court has criminal
jurisdiction, operational expenses would total approximately
$1,850,000 for the first year and approximately $1,400,000
annually thereafter. If the court has civil jurisdiction,
operational costs would total approximately $934,600 for the
first year and approximately $484,600 annually thereafter. If
the court has juvenile or family jurisdiction the costs would
fall between the criminal and civil cost amounts.
Tarrant County would incur the cost of three district courts with
unspecified jurisdiction. The costs of a criminal district court
would total approximately $2,633,300 annually. The costs of a
civil district court would total approximately $1,333,300
annually. The cost of a domestic relations court or juvenile
court would fall between the cost of the criminal and civil court
cost amounts.
Bexar County would incur the cost of one district court with
unspecified jurisdiction. The cost of the court is estimated to
be approximately $510,600 annually.
The probable fiscal implication of implementing the provisions of
the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Probable Cost Probable Revenue
Year Out of Gain
General Revenue to the
Fund 001 General Revenue
Fund 001
1996 $4,404,428 $48,000
1997 816,328
1998 2,422,530
1999 816,328
2000 2,505,328
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as the
provisions of the bill are in effect.
Source: Comptroller of Public Accounts, Secretary of State
LBB Staff: JK, DC, RR