C.S.H.B. 2261 78(R)    BILL ANALYSIS


C.S.H.B. 2261
By: West, George "Buddy"
Redistricting
Committee Report (Substituted)



BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 

C.S.H.B. 2261 relates to the composition of the Eighth and Eleventh courts
of appeals districts. 

C.S.H.B. 2261 reduces the distance from major population centers to the
appellate courthouse.  The drive from Midland/Odessa to El Paso is
approximately 50% greater than the drive from Midland/Odessa to Eastland. 

C.S.H.B. 2261 reduces the population discrepancy between the districts.
According to the 2000 census data, the population within the proposed
Eighth Court of Appeals District would be 781,323. The population within
the proposed Eleventh Court of Appeals District would be 683,759.   
  
The five-year average caseload per judge in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
District would increase from 66 to 107 cases per judge.  The five-year
average caseload per judge in the Eighth Court of Appeals District would
decrease from 99 to 68 cases per judge; however, history and demographics
suggest that the Eighth Court of Appeals District is growing faster then
the Eleventh Court of Appeals District. 

C.S.H.B. 2261 removes Ector, Gaines, Glasscock, Martin, and Midland
counties from the Eighth Court of Appeals District and places them into
the Eleventh Court of Appeals 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. 


ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 2261 amends Sections 22.201(i) and (l), Government Code.
C.S.H.B. 2261 removes the counties of Ector, Gaines, Glasscock, Martin,
and Midland from the Eighth Court of Appeals District.  C.S.H.B. 2261 adds
the counties of Ector, Gaines, Glasscock, Martin, and Midland to the
Eleventh Court of Appeals District. 

This Act does not affect the jurisdiction on appeal of any case from a
county that is transferred by this Act to a different court of appeals
district if the transcripts for the case were filed before the effective
date of this Act in the appropriate court of appeals district. 


EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2003.


COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The substitute differs from the original bill in that the original bill
also included Andrews county.