HB 2774

84(R) - 2015
House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence
House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Vote Recommendation

  • Neutral
  • Neutral
  • Neutral
  • Negative
  • Neutral


John Smithee


Byron Cook
Marsha Farney
Andrew Murr
Leighton Schubert
J.D. Sheffield

Bill Caption

Relating to the annual state salary supplement for certain county judges.

Fiscal Notes


Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB2774, As Introduced: a negative impact of ($8,680,000) through the biennium ending August 31, 2017.

The Office of Court Administration reports that 217 county judges have positions where at least 40 percent of the functions they perform as county judges meet the qualifications of being judicial functions. A salary supplement increase from $15,000 to 25 percent of a district judge's state salary, or $35,000, would be an increase of $20,000 per judge. The total annual increased cost for 217 judges would be $4,340,000 each year.
The supplement is funded through a mix of General Revenue and Judicial Fund No. 573 funding; however, for the past several years Judicial Fund No. 573 revenues have not been sufficient to meet state judicial salary obligations. Therefore, this estimate assumes General Revenue funding would be needed to cover this supplemental obligation.

Local Government

No significant fiscal implication to local government.

Bill Analysis

HB 2774 would amend the Government Code to change the annual salary supplement from the state to which certain county judges are entitled from $15,000 to an amount equal to 25 percent of the amount appropriated for the annual salary of a district judge in the General Appropriations Act in accordance with statutory provisions governing judicial salaries.

Vote Recommendation Notes

While county judges may be in need of a salary increase, it is not the role of the state to pay the salary of county judges. For this reason we oppose HB 2774 as a violation of limited government.