With end-of-session deadlines looming, key pieces of legislation related to business courts, jury service and judicial retirement are advancing in the Texas House. A hotly contested bill to establish new trial courts to hear high-dollar cases is scheduled for floor debate May 1.
On other subjects, the House recently passed a bill that would boost juror pay and a proposed constitutional amendment that would raise the mandatory age at which judges must leave office. Those two measures are awaiting action in the Texas Senate.
May 11 is the last day for the House to consider House bills and May 23 is the last day for the House to consider Senate bills. May 24 is the deadline for the Senate to consider all bills.
Here is where the 88th Legislature stands on several judiciary and civil jurisprudence issues.
Business Courts
House Bill 19 is set for floor debate May 1. It would create the Business Court Judicial District, a trial court with statewide jurisdiction and composed of divisions geographically consistent with the 11 administrative judicial regions. The business court would have jurisdiction concurrent with district courts in certain actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10 million.
The bill is sponsored by Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, a rancher who maintains a general law practice. Murr is a top lieutenant of Speaker Dade Phelan and an experienced hand at guiding controversial bills through contentious floor debates.
The bill is a priority for the legislative leadership and Gov. Greg Abbott. Supporters say the state needs a court specializing in resolving complex business disputes to improve confidence in the state’s legal system and encourage more businesses to incorporate and headquarter in Texas.
Some critics say the bill is a Republican backlash to Democrats becoming more successful in winning judicial elections in urban areas. Judges to the new business court would be appointed by the governor with advice and consent from the Senate.
Longtime Republican donor Mark Lanier said he wants to make his voice heard in opposition to HB 19 from his perspective as a trial lawyer who often supports conservative causes.
“This is totally unnecessary,” said Lanier. “Current judges aren’t overworked, and I believe in limited government, not expansive government. Furthermore, this removes voter accountability for the judges we currently have, moving business disputes into a more political landscape.”
Lanier said he agrees the emergence of Democrats winning judicial elections is a factor in creating momentum for HB 19.
“Courts should be about a fair and even playing field applying legislative and common law, regardless of whether one is a D or an R. Regretfully, it doesn’t seem to be true, however.”
Lanier said he hopes his contacts with certain lawmakers allows him to have his voice heard, “even if I don’t wind up influencing decisions.” Editor’s note: Lanier expanded on his reasons to oppose the business court bill in a Q&A with The Lawbook.
Another trial lawyer, Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, introduced a similar business court bill. Senate Bill 27 received a hearing before the Senate Jurisprudence Committee in March and was left pending.
A related bill that would create the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to hear appeals from the business trial court and cases involving state agencies passed the Senate March 30 on a 19-12 party-line vote. The author of Senate Bill 1045, Houston Republican Sen. Joan Huffman, said during floor debate that judges to the new appellate court would be elected statewide instead of having cases of state importance decided by justices elected by Austin area voters.
“It’s not my intention to insult the justices on the Third Court of Appeals. It’s simply a desire for cases of statewide interests to be decided by judges elected statewide,” Huffman said.
Sen. Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas, said he believes the Texas civil justice system benefits from having input from regional courts of appeals on major business litigation. A new statewide intermediate appellate court likely would be comprised of big city jurists from a single political party, he said.
Juror Pay
Texans who respond to a jury summons might be able to afford lunch under a bill that would increase their first day pay from $6 to $20. House Bill 2014 would increase the pay for subsequent days of jury service from $40 to $58. The state would pick up most of the tab for the increase, reimbursing a county $14 for the first day and $52 for each subsequent day.
The House also passed House Bill 2015, which would raise the age from 70 to 75 at which a person could qualify for an age-based exemption from jury service. Supporters said older individuals may have more time and wisdom to serve on juries and should not be deterred from their civic duty.
Both bills were introduced by Rep. Jeff Leach, chairman of the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee. The committee conducted a study that looked into the low rate of response to juror summonses and recommended raising juror pay and narrowing exemptions. Leach, R-Plano, entered the legislative session determined to elevate jury service after learning that nearly half of those summoned for jury duty fail to respond.
Neither of Leach’s bills has been set for a hearing in the Senate.
Judicial Retirement
Voters would decide whether to raise the mandatory retirement age from 75 to 79 for a justice or judge under a proposed constitutional amendment approved by the House in a recent vote. House Joint Resolution 107 generated no floor debate and easily received the two-thirds vote it needed to advance to the Senate. It was authored by Rep. Four Price, R-Amarillo, who said the measure would allow Texas to utilize the skills and experience of veteran judges for a few additional years.
Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht might be the most high-profile example of the retirement age discussion. Under current law, he would be forced to retire at the end of 2024, with two years left in his term. Hecht has expressed support for repealing the mandatory retirement age.