BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 696 |
By: Kleinschmidt |
Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The 25th Judicial District includes Colorado, Gonzales, Guadalupe, and Lavaca Counties. Currently, the voters from Gonzales, Guadalupe, and Lavaca Counties elect a district attorney for the judicial district who represents the state in all three of those counties. However, the commissioners court in Gonzales County has expressed a desire to be served by an independent county attorney with felony jurisdiction. C.S.H.B. 696 seeks to address this issue by removing Gonzales County from the counties served by the district attorney for the 25th Judicial District and by providing for the county attorney of Gonzales County to perform the duties of a district attorney.
|
||||||||||||
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. 696 amends the Government Code to remove Gonzales County from among the counties in which the district attorney of the 25th Judicial District is responsible for representing the state in district court and to remove the voters of Gonzales County from among the voters that elect the district attorney. The bill requires the county attorney of Gonzales County to perform the duties imposed on district attorneys by general law and grants the county attorney the powers conferred on district attorneys by general law. The bill authorizes the county attorney of Gonzales County or the Commissioners Court of Gonzales County to accept gifts or grants from any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, foundation, association, or governmental entity for the purpose of financing or assisting the operation of the office of county attorney. The bill requires the county attorney to account for and report to the commissioners court all accepted gifts or grants. The bill includes the county attorney of Gonzales County among the state prosecutors who are subject to statutory provisions governing professional prosecutors.
|
||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2013.
|
||||||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 696 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and highlighted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||||||
|