PMWJ C.S.H.B. 3556 75(R)BILL ANALYSIS JUDICIAL AFFAIRS H.B. 3556 By: Hinojosa C.S.H.B. 3556 By: Hartnett 4-16-97 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND In Hidalgo County, there is a problem of overcrowded dockets in the District Courts. Criminal cases tend to dominate the majority of District Court time. As a result, civil suits oftentimes must wait years before having an opportunity to be presented for trial. By raising the jurisdictional limit of the four county courts at law, more civil cases will be heard in the county courts at law, thus relieving the district courts of some of their burden. The judges presiding over the four county courts-at-law are currently paid at a rate far below that of the district court judges in the county and other county court at law judges from around the state. In order to equalize the salaries of the judges, the pay rate of the county court at law judges should be tied to the rate of pay for district court judges. PURPOSE C.S.H.B. 3556 would add civil jurisdiction to a Hidalgo County court at law concurrent with a district court in which the matter in controversy does not $500,000 and also provide that the judges not be paid less than $1,000 less than the total annual salary of a district judge in the county. This bill will also increase the stenographer's fee for the making of a record. 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. Sections 25.1102(a), (c), and (f), Government Code, are amended as follows: Subsec. (a) provides that a county court at law in Hidalgo County has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases in which the matter in controversy does not exceed $500,000, excluding interest, penalties, and costs. Subsec. (c) provides that a county court at law shall be paid an annual salary that is not less than $1,000 less than the total annual salary, including supplements received by a district judge in the county. Subsec. (f) increases the stenographer's fee for a record or any part of a record from $3 to $20. SECTION 2. Effective date. Application of act. SECTION 3. Emergency clause. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE Sec. 25.1102(f), in Section 1 of the substitute, which raises the stenographer's fee for a record, was not in the original bill. Section 2 in the original bill did not have an application of act clause. Section 3 is the same in both version.