REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Show Representative Hunter present. Have all registered? The quorum is present. The House and gallery, please rise. The Chair introduces -- the Chair recognizes Representative Hancock to give our invocation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Thank you. Members, if you would pray with me. Heavenly Father, we thank you for the wonderful privilege of being in this place and serving those that have placed this great opportunity and challenge before us. God, we pray that you would just come into our hearts and our minds and allow us to be thoughtful of others, be mindful of your glorious presence in this place, and our lives that we may draw upon your wisdom as we approach the challenges of today. God, we thank you for your love, your mercy and your grace that we all need. In your name I pray. Amen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Berman to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, distinguished guests, will you please rise for the pledge of allegiance of the flag of the United States and the State of Texas? [PLEDGE]
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Giddings because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Howard. Excuse Representative Castro because of important business, on the motion of Representative Howard. Excuse Representative Larry Taylor because of important business, on the motion of Representative Crownover. Excuse Representative Driver because of important business, on the motion of Representative Landtroop. Excuse Representative Mallory Caraway because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Gonzales. Please excuse Representative Harless to attend a funeral, on the motion of Representative Solomon. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair announces the following proclamation from the governor.
THE CLERK: To the Senate and House of Representatives of the 82nd Legislature First Called Session. Whereas, the people of Texas through their state constitution o have placed the power to call the legislature into special session in the hands of the Chief Executive Officer of the state. And whereas the members of 82nd Texas Legislature First Called Session have now convened to consider items presented to them by the governor. Now, therefore I, Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas, by the authority vested in me by Article 4, Section 8 in Article 3, Section 40 of the Texas Constitution do hereby present the following subject matter to the 82nd Texas Legislature First Called Session for consideration: Legislation relating to prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression of persons seeking access public buildings and transportation.
(Inaudible) sign my name officially, and cause the Seal of the State to be affixed hereto at Austin, this 20th day of June, 2011. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the committee on calendars to meet while the House is in session at 11:15 a.m. today, June 21st, place 3W15, to consider a calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The committee on calendars will meet at 11:15 a.m. on June the 21st, 2011, in room 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you might want to put your tray tables and seats in their full, upright position. The Chair recognizes Representative Craddick for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Concurrent Resolution 20 honoring Southwest Airlines on their 40th anniversary.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HCR 20.
THE CLERK: HCR 20 by Craddick. WHEREAS, Southwest Airlines is celebrating its 40th anniversary on June 18, 2011, providing a welcome opportunity to celebrate the success of this signature Texas company and its cofounder, Herb Kelleher; and WHEREAS, In the mid-1960s, businessman Rollin W. King conceived of a new kind of airline that could fly passengers inexpensively and quickly across short distances; in a meeting with his lawyer, Herb Kelleher, at the St. Anthony Club in San Antonio he used a napkin to illustrate his idea, drawing a triangle with points labeled San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas; this simple sketch would go on to become a symbol of the infant company's ethos and to form the basis of its initial route map; and WHEREAS, Southwest Airlines was chartered as a Texas Corporation, and on June 18, 1971, the company began commercial flights with three Boeing 737 airliners and fewer than 70 employees; since then, thanks in large part to the dynamic leadership of Mr. Kelleher, who served as the company's chairman president, and CEO from 1982 until 2001, Southwest has become one of the most respected names in the industry; now under the direction of Gary Kelly, nearly 35,000 employees schedule, maintain, and fly more than 500 Boeing 737s between 72 cities in 37 states; the airline operates 3,400 flights a day, making it the largest U.S. Carrier of domestic passengers as of September 2010; moreover, the airline has turned a profit for 38 years in a row; and WHEREAS, Southwest has regularly earned top rankings in safety from the International Airline Passengers Association, and it has consistently received the lowest ratio of customer complaints per passenger boarded of all major U.S. airlines according to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, This impressive record of customer satisfaction is no doubt linked to Southwest's approach to employee relations; in 1973, the company initiated the first profit-sharing program in the U.S. airline industry, and it has never laid off or furloughed a single employee; among its many honors, Southwest is often recognized as one of the best places in the country to work; in addition, it was recently named the "greenest airline" by the nonprofit group Climate Counts, and it has been repeatedly ranked as one of the most admired companies in the world by Fortune Magazine; and. WHEREAS, Over the last four decades, the percentage of American adults who have flown on a commercial airliner has risen from 15 to 85 percent, a result that is often referred to as the "Southwest Effect," and on the occasion of this special anniversary, Mr. Kelleher, Mr. Kelly, and the employees of Southwest may indeed take great pride in their enormous contributions to the mobility of Americans and to the culture as a whole; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas 1st Called Session, hereby commemorate the 40th anniversary of Southwest Airlines and extend to Herb Kelleher, Gary Kelly, and the entire Southwest family sincere best wishes for continued success; And, be it further. RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Southwest Airlines as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives and Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Dean Craddick.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Anchia moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Dean Craddick.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, no doubt everyone in this room has flown on or several times the little Texas company named southwest Airlines. I must admit I'm a frequent flier, even though we don't have a direct flight to Midland and I'm working on that this morning, I don't think I can get there. Seriously, the resolution captures the accomplishments of a true Texas entrepreneur's success. Southwest is a true icon of Texas. It's an honor to have the Southwest people here today. Texas would not be the same today without Southwest. They changed the face of this state, the way people got around and the way business was done in this state. I will say that I've got a couple of stories about Southwest. And my son, we took our children to Hawaii a few years ago. My son was 15. And he said, you know, this is great over here but he said, you know, I'd rather just live in Texas where we can just go to Dallas or Houston every weekend if we wanted to. And I think that's what a lot of people feel like. Herb and I taught a class at UT together several years ago, and they normally ask you to come back and after the two of us finished this class they have never asked us to come back, and it was a lot of fun. Help me welcome the people from Southwest I have here. Gary Kelly is Chairman of the Board and president executive officer and his wife, Carol, is on the dais up here. Ron Rick and his executive vice president of services and secretary is up here, and his wife, Eileen, up here in the middle and then (inaudible) is the chairman. Wouldn't you welcome them and they can come up and say hi to them? Thank you very much.
SOUTHWEST PERSON: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. And thank you all of the members for this splendid recognition of Southwest Airlines. We are tremendously appreciative and greatly moved by your action. You may not -- some of the younger members may not be totally familiar with the fact that, in essence, the Texas Legislature and the Texas Supreme Court are the parents of Southwest Airlines; because we were constantly embroiled in battle with the other airlines in the legislature and in the courts, and you stuck by us. And I hope that the results are satisfactory to you. I thought, maybe, we had finally made it when Texas Monthly anointed Southwest Airlines one of the most significant things that had happened to Texas during the 1970's. And then when Bob Bullock started referring to Bluebell Icecream and Southwest Airlines as the two companies that represented the spirit of Texas. And, frankly, your support, your help when we were so oppressed brought that to pass. So I know that sometimes it's not the most pleasant experience to be told that your father (inaudible) but you are, and we have to live with it and we thank you for taking us up as a child and protecting us and preserving us and bringing the Southwest Airlines to pass that we have today. And Gary Kelly, the CEO of Southwest Airlines right back here. Gary is under the illusion that he's taller, stronger and smarter and better looking than I am, but I'm getting him some meds and I think we'll get him straightened out in a very short period of time. But he has led Southwest Airlines to even greater heights, as we have explored the far reaches of the country. And I don't know how many of you know this as the parents of Southwest Airlines, but your child has really served as a role model for carriers around the world. Southwest has been emulated every place on the inhabited continents. And what has that caused? Billions of people have been able to fly that previously could not. So you're the founder of a worldwide revolution, as well as a Texas revolution. And Gary and I (inaudible) are just grateful, not only from the bottom o of our hearts but throughout all of our hearts, including the ventricles, for your action here today. It's a real thrill for me. And, in closing, I'll just tell you how I feel about the Texas Legislature. I was in the balcony one day and a member at that time sent up a note and it said Herb, I didn't realize you had a bill before the House. And I sent a note back and said I don't, I'm just a legislative groupie. So thank you so very, very much for this meaningful and always memorable honor. We're very grateful for you for what you've done in the past for us, and for what you've done today. Thank you on behalf of all of Southwest Airlines.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, there are also some gifted employees of Southwest Airlines in the gallery right here, so welcome to you all as well. Thank you. Members, we have three memorial resolutions. Chair recognizes Representative Frullo and Perry for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules for Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 3.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: SCR 3 by Duncan. In memory of. Stacy Richards, of Lubbock.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor please rise. Resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Perry -- Representative Frullo moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hughes for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider at this time House Concurrent Resolution 18, in memory of Sergeant Joshua David Powell of Wood County.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HCR 18. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HCR 18 by Hughes. In memory of Sergeant Joshua David Powell of Quitman.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, Sergeant Powell gave his life for his country on June 4th in Afghanistan, and this resolution is in his memory. And I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, it's a memorial resolution. All those in favor please rise. Motion is unanimously adopted. Representative White moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hughes for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider at this time House Concurrent Resolution 19. I'm joined by Mr. Simpson and Mr. White. This is in honor of U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Bradley Justin Gaudet of Gladewater.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HCR 19. The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: SCR 19 by Hughes. In memory of U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Bradley Justin Gaudet of Gladewater.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, Chief Warrant Officer Gaudet was killed on June 5th in Afghanistan. He is from Gladewater in Representative Simpson's district and mine and he grew up in (inaudible) in Mr. White's district. And this is in his memory, we would respectfully move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor please rise. Resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Simpson and White move to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're on items eligible. Chair calls up Senate Bill 6. Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to concur on the Senate's request to appoint a conference committee for Senate Bill 6.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none -- Are there any instructions for conferees? Chair hears none. The clerk will read the following conferees.
THE CLERK: House conferees, Conference Committee on SB 6. Eissler, chair. Aycock, Branch, Hochberg, Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up Senate Bill 8. Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to concur with the Senate's request for a conference committee on Senate Bill 8.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Are there any motions to instruct the conferees? If not, the clerk will read the following conferees.
THE CLERK: House conferees conference committee on SB 8. Eissler, chair. Aycock, Crownover, Hancock, Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we have some amendments being drafted -- (inaudible) House will stand at ease for ten minutes.
(The House stands at ease.)
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we're going to take a quick break for lunch until 1:00 o'clock. If you have any announcements bring them down front. Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I wanted to give y'all an update on the fires that are happening in east Texas. I know it is usually Rick Hardcastle who is speaking to this. Unfortunately, in House District 13 we have Grimes County, the southern part of Grimes County down by Plantersville we have now nearly six thousand acres that have burned, we have lost over 30 homes, we have not had a fatality. We do have two injuries. In Walker County, parts of I-45 have been shut down at different times. It's burning on both sides of I-45. We do believe that we have that fire better contained. The Grimes County is only 10 to 15 percent contained. Your prayers are greatly appreciated. Pray for rain. There's a chance this evening for rain and we desperately need it in Grimes County. So I just wanted to give y'all that update and, unfortunately, I think there's two more fires in east Texas that are also happening. So pray for rain and pray for the volunteers and the volunteer fireman from all of the State of Texas, and the Texas Forestry is doing a great job. We have helicopters dropping lots of water, we have bulldozers, we have everyone out there trying to contain these fires. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.
REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Could I have your attention, please? We're going to have a republican caucus at 12:45 in the Ag Museum, and we hope all the republicans will be there.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the appropriate time to reconsider a bill disapproved by the governor limited -- limited to the session in which the bill was originally approved by the House?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, I don't have an answer for you.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. I'll just give you an example. Can the House reconsider a bill from the regular session that ended on May 30th or just those bills approved during this special session?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, I don't have an answer for that, either. That's never been done before.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: How many days does the governor have from when he disapproves of a bill and return it with his objections to the House in which it originated?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, the governor's returned all of the bills from regular session (inaudible) Secretary of State's office.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Right. But how many days does he have, Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, I don't have the constitutional provision in front of us.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: What is the procedure by which the House may reconsider a bill that has been disapproved by the governor? Since we're in a special session, obviously we're in specific circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, the Constitution allows us to reconsider bills during the session in which they were vetoed.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. And what is the required vote to reconsider -- I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And what is the required vote to reconsider a bill disapproved by the governor? Is it two-thirds of the members present or just a hard two-thirds?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, we have to look at the constitutional provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. And finally, Mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Upon reconsideration of a bill disapproved by the governor, does it become law if it is approved by two-thirds of each House?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, are you talking about a bill from a regular session to a regular session, or to a special session?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Well, we're talking about bills that may have received two-thirds of the vote during the regular session, and then now since, you know, we are in special session -- what would be the procedure? Is it a two -- like I said, is it a hard two-thirds vote or a two-thirds vote of the members?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, that's never been done before so I can't answer your question.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Bohac because of family, on the motion of Representative Callegari. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The House stands in recess until 1:00 p.m.
(The House stands in recess.)
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 79. The clerk will ring the bell.
THE CLERK: HB 79 by Lewis. Relating to fiscal and other matters necessary for implementation of the judiciary budget as enacted by House Bill 1, Acts of the 82nd Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2011, and to the operation and administration of, and practice and procedures in courts in the judicial branch of state government.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, when we left this bill yesterday we were on the Anderson amendment and there was an amendment to that amendment. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this amendment to the amendment does it -- basically it's -- the amendment that it's amending struck all of Article 5, the Justice of the Peace provision, that a lot of Justices of the Peace -- Justices of the Peace have worked on for several years. What this amendment does, it strikes that language but it adds some provisions to address the concerns that Representative Anderson has. It -- it adds provisions, it requires that the rules of the Supreme Court does adopt, that they cannot require a party to be represented by an attorney. The rule can't be so complex that a reasonable person without any legal training would have difficulty understanding or applying the rules. In other words, keep it -- you'll keep it a layman's court, or potentially that. You couldn't have any evidence or discovery rules that other than what the Judge, the Justice of the Peace wants to apply. And it also has a provision that the Supreme Court will ensure that Justice of the Peace are represented on any committee that is established to make any representations on the content of the rules. And that's what this does to address the concerns that Rodney had, and he has indicated to me that he will accept the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Can I ask the gentleman a couple of questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Of course, I'm always happy to.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Representative. Just kind of help me think through this again. There's three courts in a justice court, three dockets. There is the justice court which operates under the rules -- the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And the other docket is the small claims docket, which really has not rules, or rules of evidence. It just operate under whatever the Judge sees and what we truly think of a small claims court.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And then we have the magistrates court that has the administrative stuff and criminal stuff.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And so what your original amendment did was, if I'm correct, it abolished the justice court docket?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Not quite. Yes, well --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And ordered the Supreme Court to write rules for the Supreme Court docket?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Here's -- Here's what it does, Phil. And you know much more about this subject than I'll ever know, but here's what the bill does: Where we had the sort of the justice court that has all the rules of civil procedure, and then you've got a small claims court that is very informal, and all of it is with the same judge. One judge, two different dockets. What it did is it just really combined with the two dockets, so you've got one docket you'll have -- instead of using the name small claims court you will call it the justice court, you had to call it one or the other, you'll call it justice court. But the basic rules and procedures will be the small claims procedures. So that's -- that's what it does, it merges it, it calls it the justice court, but it uses the small claims court procedures; because you didn't want to just do away with the title justice court, because they'll be griping about that.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: In giving the Supreme Court to the authority to write rules over the small claims court, whatever we're going to call it, would it give the Supreme Court the authority to ever require that Justices of the Peace be attorneys, licensed attorneys?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. The supreme Court does not have that power.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And it wouldn't after this bill, either?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. They would not have it -- there's nothing in this bill that would do that. In fact, what this bill does, since it makes everything small claims and makes everything accessible to a layman, and except for the three -- they're already outside small claims type of collection cases, everything's going to be small claims, it makes it much more amenable to having a layman be Justice of the Peace. And that's -- in many more cases, really all the case now will be small claims court. It will be much more amenable to being able to work out those cases without lawyers.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Speaker? Could I ask that the comments we had be reduced to writing and entered into the journal?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Phil.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'd be happy to, Randy.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: And Judge, please refresh my memory. Exactly what are we trying to fix by changing the way our very successful JP court system works?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: What we're -- what we're doing. And, Randy, you know this is several years worth of effort by the judiciary, and I mean when I say judiciary I mean the Justices of the Peace. When Senator Duncan first started working on this the first thing he did was get a task force of Justices of the Peace together to work on this section, and this is what they came up with. What they found was most successful, was really the small claims procedures, the framework, making it informal. And that's what they wanted to do. What we were they were -- what they didn't like was the fact that a Justice of the Peace had to keep two separate civil docket books. One of them, with all the rules of civil procedure applicable, and so if a plaintiff -- a person came in with a -- a layman -- and they happen to file under that it was a nightmare, because everything you did had to be according to rules of civil rules of procedure and they were lost. To make it better, they wanted to use the procedure of the small claims. So the decision was let's have one set of rules that would be for small claims type rules, and have one docket and have it one way. And that's the best way to do it, because that's the way it's been most successful.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So it was a little tougher, and let me understand, a little tougher for the JP's to keep records, but it sure was simple and easy for the rank and file ordinary Texan to understand. And so what we're attempting to do is make the recordkeeping a little easier. But aren't we in some essence doing exactly -- Let me see if you agree with this story. Here a while back there was a small group of Texans, the University of Texan expert, that thought it might be better to bring Texas A & M underneath the umbrella. The proposed Texas rules of all Aggie related items into the UT system. Do you remember that?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: You don't? Well, a large group of Aggies folks heard that and they said no, they did not want to move Texas A & M under the UT system. They were afraid we were messing with Texas, and they said don't mess with Texas. And sometimes, wouldn't you agree, the legislature tries to do things, and while recordkeeping better more streamlined, these are recordkeeping for the JP's might be a desirable thing, if it adversely effects -- I mean after all, they don't they work for the Texas citizens and those that forum and those voters that elect them and even those that even don't elect them?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: You know --
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So what's necessarily easiest for them might not be the best for the voters, and there may be unintended consequences. Have you ever -- Have you ever had that happen, seen that happen in legislation?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I think what -- the simple occasion of the justice court docket to go to small claims court rules for everything is better for the people, and it's worked out well. And it's just instead of having the title of two different courts you've got one court, but with the small claims rules and that's what works out best.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, that might be the best rule keeping for the JP court's that make their job easier, per se, as you've described it, but if it's not best for the rank and file Texans if we change the very simple what's that old adage of if something ain't broke don't fix it, if it's not good for Texans then that may just have to be an extra step that they live with. You know, there may be those in the legislature, wouldn't you agree, that don't like coming up here for special session. But if that's what is needed, that's what we do. Although after that vote yesterday you might question that.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No, I think that we're all working hard.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Well, I think it's a mistake to change a simple, simple system that most people like and most people understand and most people work. So I would hope that when it comes time we would vote this amendment down and actually keep Anderson's amendment back on the table. That we would change that. If I need resubmit that amendment maybe I can get you to accept that as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I don't think I'll be accepting it, Randy.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Thank you, Judge.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'd be happy to yield, Chairman Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Judge Lewis, here -- As I understand it, the concern now is that we have -- within the JP court system a JP can hear either the justice court or the small claims court. And what we're doing essentially is combining that into all of small claims court which has the benefit for individuals of not having the rules of civil procedure apply.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So for -- As I understand your -- the impact of the bill, it makes it easier for litigants, because nobody who goes before a JP from now on will be required to have a lawyer.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's right. Except for these three limited statutory areas, that's exactly right.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So we're making it easier for litigants to appear before a JP court, and less expensive for people to appear before a JP?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's exactly correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I guess the conversation that some of the members were having has to do with the fact that in small claims court there really aren't any rules, per se. I mean the justice can ask the questions that he needs to ask and the litigants can give the information that they need to give, and that's not necessarily -- you're not changing that in this legislation at all. Now, is there a provision with respect to the Supreme Court being able to promulgate rules for small claims?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: There is -- There's a -- There's a provision for the Supreme Court to write rules. Now, that we're sort -- we're doing away with the distinction. But most of what it amounts to, Pete, it's not adding rules to small claims. It's really that we've got all of these rules now, the rules of civil procedures apply to justice court, and we've got to start taking those off, we've got reduce those rules. So only those rules that fit an informal procedure will be left. Because right not the whole rules of law civil procedure apply to civil justice in justice of the peace court. If we don't have informal we can't all those rules be required. So the Supreme Court has to have a committee, which will be mostly Justices of the Peace, and they've got to go through and just start -- and take away rules until we're only left with those that are -- promote an informal situation.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so again the goal is to make any litigant feel more comfortable in the Justices of the Peace's court, because you're going to minimize the rules.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's it.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So, the idea is that the Supreme Court simply is supposed to provide the framework, but not the actual -- you have -- you have to have an objection and here's the hearsay rule and this, that's not the kind of rule you're talking about.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. Here's -- In this bill it specifically says what the Supreme Court has to do. It's going to provide -- these rules can only provide the framework for what we do in small claims now. No format of pleading no format of hearing no rules of everyday are discovery other than what the Justices of the Peace wants to have and the assistant. The Justices of the Peace can ask questions and participate in the resolutions. So every bit of it is small claims. So it's the rules that you would need. And, Pete, as you know, you have to have some rules. You've got to have a rule on how you request a hearing, how much time do you need to give for a hearing. How you give notice to people, you know, email, fax, whatever there. Just need to be a few --
(inaudible) extension of time. Few rules and that's what we'll end up with. And, Pete, I'd like to say this -- a lot of people say (inaudible) why does the Supreme Court write these rules? The Supreme Court members over here will get there, and they'll start writing. What the Supreme Court does is it gets the committee together --
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Of JP's?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Of mostly the Justices of the Peace, to say what do we really need to have? What does a Justice of the Peace do now? And that will be the rules.
SENATOR GLENN HEGAR: And I guess as I heard the conversation, and I guess I'm a little confused, my reading of legislation this makes it easier for litigants, and it makes it cheeper for litigants and, frankly, it makes it easier for Justices of the Peace as well, because they don't have to worry about the rules civil procedure in any case with the exception of these three statutory; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's absolutely correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: This is better this way.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. And some Justices of the Peace have become worried because it says small claims court is being done away with.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: But it's actually being expanded (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: The title small claims court is being done away with, but all the
(inaudible) rules are justice courts.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: (Inaudible) raises a point of order, the gentleman's time is expired. Representative Lewis sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Anderson amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Anderson.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, really quickly, yesterday I was very concerned as many of you heard that we were basically turning the small claims court into a court where we would have attorneys that would have to represent small claims litigants. The amendment that has been presented, that I've accepted, addresses that concern. It also addresses the concern that I had relative to the rules that would be created would be too complex for the normal mom and pop litigants to be treated fairly. The amendment addresses those concerns. The other thing, I do need to -- to say is for the record and to make it perfectly clear, it was not me that requested strict enforcement yesterday. That was not me. And I also have to make one statement. Representative Jackson called to my attention that we had passed a bill here that was very similar to that, and I made the statement I don't recall a 146 page bill. I went back and researched that and Representative Jackson was correct. The original bill was just barely a hundred pages. But I had to get those in but the amendment is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anderson, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Anderson , if I recall your concerns yesterday and looking at the amendment today, your concern yesterday that was the bill gave the Supreme Court the authority to write rules for the JP courts and/or small claims cases, and that there was not a lot of guidance given to the Supreme Court; and therefore you are concerned about what the end result might be.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And then with Chairman Lewis' amendment to your amendment, there is guidelines and it says that they can't require people to be represented by an attorney. They can't be complex so that a reasonable person without legal training would have a hard time understanding them and applying them, and that the -- the (inaudible) they must consult with a committee made up mostly of Justices of the Peace before writing these rules. And so does that relieve or alieve your concerns?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That absolutely alleviates the the concerns that I had as well. When Representative Lewis came to me and asked me about this amendment, we looked at it and it alleviated every concern that I had yesterday.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Will the gentleman yield for some questions? Rodney I'm reading through actually your amendment as amended, which is basically, would you agree gutted? And Judge Lewis has actually superimposed his amendment on top of yours?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Right. What we did yesterday was to complete -- would have completely removed Article 5. What -- Chairman Lewis' amendment does is it brings that back and adds the
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Right. I got that. I want to make that clear to the House that y'all did that just so you didn't have to pull your amendment down, okay? So this is, I guess, the quickest way to do it so to speak?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: But sometimes when we try to do things in the quickest way, we wind up with unintended consequences. Now like Representative Eiland and I have been reading through the amendment and it says on line 6 the rules adopted by the Supreme Court may not require that a party in a case be represented by an attorney. But wouldn't you agree that once they go under the rules, the other rules, that there are those who might want to get an attorney because they just would be have a better chance of winning their suit? We're not saying the Supreme Court would require that attorneys be used, but since there are no now rules in play that heretofore were not, there are those who might want to get an attorney because they're afraid of losing their suit? Is that a possibility in your mind?
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Those exist right now, and that was what I was arguing yesterday, is that I did not want to turn in mom and pop litigants into those -- the fact that they had to get attorneys in order to be able to seem successful. So I don't -- and I think in -- with this amendment, that it gives the Supreme Court -- it gives the Supreme Court direction to state this is very clear, we do not want attorneys to have to represent these pro se litigants.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I understand that they are not going to require, but the very fact that there's rules in place might create a -- Now, line -- portion 2 says these rules adopted by the Supreme Court may not be so complex that a reasonable person without legal training would have difficulty understanding or applying the rules. And I don't know about you, let me ask you, are you like me sometimes you're a little -- you're a little wary of having lawyers, Supreme Court justices, with all due respect; write rules that a common person can understand, really?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That's one reason that if you read further it says that the panel is to be made up -- that the Justices of the Peace --
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: We're going to talk about that.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: -- will be included in that rule-making.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: When they're writing those rules I would be really concerned, because we have a very common system, simple system that works now. And this legislature, if they vote for this bill the way it is, is about to fix that. And number three, it says require that discovery rules adopted under the Texas rules of civil procedure or the Texas rules of evidence be applied, except to the extent the Justice of the Peace accept -- except to the extent the Justice of the Peace hearing the case determines that the rules must be followed to ensure that the proceeding is fair to all parties. Don't JP's do that now?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Yes, they do. But this again instructs the Supreme Court to say this is the type of rule that we're looking at.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: So we're having a Supreme Court we are going to instruct to tell a local JP court down in Brazoria County who knows the people, works and plays, if you will, and goes to church amongst the people; knows his area, we're going to have a Supreme Court justice tell the Citizens of Austin, Texas tell them what the rules there and they need amp Brazoria county at the most basic level?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: These are the same rules that already exist under Section 28 of the government code, is what -- is what we have, if I recall correctly, let me make sure I get it right; it's under Section 28 of the goverment code that was originally included in the bill. And now, what we've done, is we've come back and the issues that I had yesterday I feel have been addressed adequately by Chairman's Lewis' amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. And finally, item E, as a committee established by the supreme court to recommend rules to be adopted under this section must include Justices of the Peace. Now, are you aware that there's actually two different organizations that have included Justices of the Peace?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Yes, sir. I do.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Would it be acceptable to you or the Judge -- First of all, I hope this goes down, I hope members agree with me that we have a simple system, it ain't broke; it makes the recordkeeping easier for our Justices of the Peace, I get that, Lord love them. I'm -- I'm grateful for the job they do. But sometimes simple, for the most Texans is better. But, if not, what about an amendment that would say that they include all of the parties from the JP's organizations?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: That would have to be something that would go on to the bill with Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Okay. Well, I hope the members agree with me that a simple, simple, simple system and, for whatever reason, we're about to fix it. And I hope they will vote against it.
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: With that, members, I close. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I want to speak on the amendment right quick just because I can't let this moment of irony go by. I think it was good that Mr. Anderson brought us yesterday his concern about giving the Supreme Court better discretion on how to write rules for JP court and small claims courts and therefore, in this amendment, we give the Supreme Court guidance on what we want and don't want in these rules. However, on the Saturday before Mother's Day we were here debating a bill, we were trying to bring forth concerns dealing with district court and county court and motions to dismiss. And at that time the question was called and debate was cut off, and so we couldn't bring those same concerns like Mr. Anderson was able to bring today, which I think are going to make the bill better. So, with that, I vote on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Anderson sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Sarah Davis of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Members -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is an amendment to change the current bill which reduces the requirements for a visiting judge by two years for a statutory probate court. We discussed it yesterday and it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Sarah Davis of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment that I am offering regarding the section that deals with associate judges and civil action. I read through the bill and it allows for a party to object to the associate judge to try the case, but it allows for no objections for the associate judge to rule on other than part of the matter. In federal court you have a system where you have a district judge and oftentimes a magistrate. And often times a judge can assign a case to a magistrate
(inaudible) and any of the parties can object to the magistrate. And at that point it goes back to the district judge. So I think that to be fair that either party should be able to object to the assignment of an associate judge, not just for the trial but for the entire matter. And it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Sarah Davis of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is an amendment that I have filed. I was looking on page four through -- there were several pages that deal with the transfer of cases or the exchange of benches. And what this current bill does, it says that any judge can transfer any case or any part of any case, which could mean a hearing for something, to any other judge in that county. So what happens is there is no consistency in a case. You may file a pre trial motion, and it will be heard by one judge and there will be a discovery motion that will be heard by another judge. You could have four or five judges ruling pretrial, and then you have one judge that tries the case. Now, the classic example is here in Travis County, it's sort of a lazy Susan type of operation and it's very hard to -- to try these cases and to have the judge be engaged in the process from beginning to end. And it has been my personal experience, from practicing law over a decade back, when you don't have the same judge ruling from beginning to end it's complete and consistent and often times you don't have the most prepared judges. They haven't done -- they're not familiar with the facts of the case, the parties, and so this amendment would abolish the practice of allowing any judge to transfer any part of the case to any other judge in that county. I think the way it works, particularly in Harris County, which is if you file a case you are assigned that court and that judge handles that case unless there are circumstances in which a visiting judge has to be brought in. No piecemealing it. Exactly. And I do not know if it's acceptable to the author. No, it is not acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Olivera, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes. Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Representat ive Davis, I share the frustration you have when there is a case, but I believe most judges, particularly -- are we talking about district court and county courts all courts in your amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: This amendment deals with district court.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Okay. I think one of the problems I have is in many cases there will be a judge gone for a month and another judge does sit in, and most judges will defer rulings or make them subject to the judge that's gone, and I'm wondering if you are taking away all discretion here. And my concern would be is some of our counties don't operate like Harris County, and what may work for you is fine, but some of our smaller counties who only had one, two, three district judges; they have to share their docket. If one is on and there's an emergency you'll never get things heard. So I'm concerned that the practice that you're urging on us, because you want to do it in Harris County, will now be applied to all over. And I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Well, it's not that I'm -- first of all, it's not that I'm trying to get anything to be done in Harris County. This is just how Harris County operates, and I practice there more. And I absolutely understand your concerns, especially in smaller counties. And this would do nothing to alter the practice of having a visiting judge. So often times it's been my experience when a judge is go8ing to go on vacation they will bring in a visiting judge so handle their docket while they're gone.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Are you creating a mechanism, though, that once a judge rules you're always going to have parties filing motions to reurge or to reconsider, and -- I'm not sure you are solving a problem. You might be creating one.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: You know, I think what I'm doing is -- It's -- will be more of official for judicial economy, because the case is going to be with one judge the entire time. I mean I understand your concerns, I don't think my amendment does that. But, you know, the Judge may disagree.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: I guess what we often do is judges will share things or in particular I've seen judges who maybe have an expertise in a particular area, and the discovery is sent to that judge. Or, in major litigation, where you're dealing with mass torts, major product liability, major cases; there will be a judge assigned just for discovery. And that -- that is because of their expertise in that particular area, but the trial will be conducted by somebody else. And I am afraid that you're mandating some judges who might not want to do the discovery in that case, or might not feel it's qualified to do the
(inaudible) Robinson type issues that will come up when you're looking at challenges on the science and things like that. So I -- I -- I think it's a good idea but I think we have to leave it to the discretion of the local judges. In my defense work, as an attorney, I know that there are judges that are specialists in certain areas and they should handle those cases.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Well, I think that to address your first concern about specialized knowledge, a judge. A judge -- this does nothing to affect the judge's ability to appoint a special master or someone that he or she thinks is an expert on a specific area to conduct that (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: (Inaudible)
(inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: I would also argue that in a district court case a judge is
(inaudbile) and a (inaudible) to handle all types of cases. So I don't -- I don't think that we should say that it's appropriate for a judge to be incompetent in some (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: We've seen -- We've seen in TWIA type cases, we've seen it in product liability, we've see it in toxic tort cases and the other things where the judge will try the case but he refers to discovery from other judges, and I think you are taking away that discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Well, I think that you make a very good point. Because in a lot of those type of situations you'll see the appointment of a multi district litigations panel that comes in front of the Supreme Court.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: In certain instances.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: And those judges do excellent jobs handling those dockets. And it is not my intention that this bill in any way affects the Supreme Court's ability to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: And I'm not sure that that's the way the language reads, because if you appoint, there was, for example, in your county there was a judge who was a specialist who did many things, and went all around and just handled the discovery in cases all around the state. And I respectfully submit that you're taking away the discretion of the local judiciary to address this problem.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you. Members, I cannot accept this amendment. It would be in most counties a scheduling nightmare if judges could not take cases that were on another, you know, judge in the same county. You know, their co-judges cases. We have had four judges in (inaudible) four district judges, we were constantly taking each others' cases, because the litigants came, they came from out of town and the judges were sick or you just name it. There were all sorts of situations. One judge was in a month long capital murder trial, what is the other judge going to do? I mean he's going shut down his docket? It is a scheduling nightmare if you don't have exchange of cases. Because this would cause scheduling nightmares, because it would be a substantial change in the law that we have right now and not make the situation better, but make it worse and more inefficient, I do move to table. I withdraw the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I just want to just make a comment. We have the system that is trying to be changed by this amendment, and one thing I want you keep in mind for those of you that don't like all this litigation and always stand up against frivolous litigation, all those that (inaudible) tort reform, the rotating docket system in San Antonio is a good thing to have if you believe in that, because you never know what judge you're going to get. You show up to court, you make your announcement, you're ready and you get assigned to whatever judge is available. And sometimes that's just enough for parties to work out their matters. And so if you know what judge you're getting, and if you're on my team, well then you're going to play that to the hilt. If you're on the other team well, they're going to play that to the hilt. And the reality is nothing's going to get done. So I'm very concerned because we have this practice in Bexar County, and while it may not be perfect because we never know who we're going to get and there is some inconsistencies, I tell you what, it makes us work our cases out, because you just don't know, and that element of surprise will spark that negotiation. And for that reason, when Representative Lewis moves to table, I ask that we vote yes on the motion to table. I am opposed to amendment. If they want keep it in Harris County that's fine with me, I just don't want it in Bexar County because it works for us in Bexar County. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis to close.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I am trying to abolish the rotating docket system that we've heard about. I have practices law in both types of systems, and when I show up to court as an attorney, one of the systems you have no idea what judge you are going to get. And that also means that they probably haven't prepared for that hearing. Then you go and you've had another hearing and you've had a different judge, and this goes on and on and on. And there's very little consistency in these rulings. And you never, by the time you get to trial, you have a totally different trial judge. It's a piecemeal way of a case, you can go from one end of the courthouse to the next. And so I ask for you to vote in favor of this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Sheets, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Ms. Davis, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You are wanting to make sure that we, in Dallas county and Harris County and other parts of the state, aren't having to have deal with this rotating docket system that they have here in Travis county?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: What I'm trying to do is say that it cannot be mandated. And if a county or at court system, I guess, wants to do it -- Well, no, I'm saying I want to (inaudible) I think this amendment reads that it's going to get rid of that --
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: So in Dallas county we can do it the Dallas county way, and in Harris County they can do it the Harris County way, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: No. I'm striking the codification of this rotating system. It does not appear, other counties are doing it but it's not been codified. This bill codifies the practice and I disagree with the practice, and I'm moving against codifying the practice.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: So that we don't have to deal with this throughout the state?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: I'm sorry, what was the question?
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: So that we don't have to deal with this poor docket system throughout the entire state?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: I think this is a great amendment, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the Davis amendment. Vote aye, vote nay on the amendment. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Davis voting aye. Representative Lewis voting no. Have all members voted? Show Representative Kolkhorst voting no. Have all voted? Being 31 ayes and 102 nays, the amendment fails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Sarah Davis of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis. Amendment is withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hilderbran?
THE CLERK: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Amendment by Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a local bill that deals with the 198th District Court. I put an amendment on earlier in the regular session on (inaudible) bill, and I wanted to make changes to that. So I saw this court administration bill as an opportunity to do it. And that's why I've offered the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This has to do with forfeited property. There are no subject -- there's no subject matter in this bill that would relate to a matter like this. This bill did not come through judicial committee. And, therefore, I would oppose this amendment at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Is this amendment in any way even remotely germane to the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I don't think that -- There's nothing in the bill that has to do with the proceeds of sale of forfeited properties or District Attorneys and that sort of thing, no, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, then I'm going to call a point of order on it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Laubenberg ? The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Laubenberg.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: All this does is -- All this does is change one letter in judges, from judge to judges, to allow the judges in Rockwell County to all serve on the juvenile court board. And I think it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Laubenberg sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment's adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Amendment by Berman. Chair recognizes Representative Berman.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment passed as a bill out of the jurisprudence committee. It applies to the use of foreign laws by Texas courts. It prohibits Texas courts, and it's only in the family code, only in a noncommercial code, but only in the family code; and the foreign law means the law, rule or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States. There are ten states in the United States today that are using -- that are actually adjudicating based on Sharia law. You all know what Sharia law is. This would prohibit Texas from using Sharia law, and if Texas courts did use Sharia law, as one is doing now; there are ten states using Sharia law right now, they have cases. It would cost money, it would be a fiscal instability to the states to bring in Sharia consultants to actually go over Sharia law in our courts. So this would prohibit Texas courts from using international law, and it passed before, and I'm offering this as an amendment and I don't know if the author will accept it or not.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: This is a matter that I'll leave to the will of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I understand what this bill is generally about, and I understand talking about Sharia law is kind of vaguely related to the law. But is it really, really related to the bill? Or is it another example of trying to piggy back on a bill that is not appropriate?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I would say this, Lon, what the bill tries to do is set out just the administrative and court organizational matters, rather than changes in substantive law. This appears to be somewhat a change in substantive law. It does have to do with choice of forms and forms and contracts, so it wouldn't be a call to me on whether it's germane or not.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, I'll call the point of order whether or not it's germane.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is respectfully overruled. Representative Berman sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? There is objection. Question occurs on the adoption of the Berman amendment. Vote aye, vote no. Show Representative Burnam voting no. Show Representative Davis of Harris voting aye. Show Representative Lewis voting aye. Show Representative Kolkhorst voting aye. Have all voted? Being 105 ayes and 29 nays, the amendment is adopted. Mr. Martinez Fischer? Members, that concludes the amendments. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 79? Chair recognizes Representative Lewis to close.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you members, for your kind attention and suffering with me through all of this. This is about six years worth of work for the judiciary. I am very proud of this and I ask you to vote aye on the bill. Thank you. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Isaac, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lewis, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Just for a quick question.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes, sir. I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Does this in anyway, open the door for a requirement to make JP's become attorneys?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No, you know, the -- the requirements for the Justices of the Peace are in the election code. There's no requirement that they be attorneys. This will mean it will be less necessary than ever, because right now you have to know the code of civil procedure and for cases that are not filed in small claims court after this that won't be true, and everything that's filed justice of the court will be under small claims rules, so with no requirement at all and it won't tend to do that, either.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Does this in any way hinder or, I guess -- yeah, hinder access to courts for indigents?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. It'll make it easier and faster, and it'll just make it universal. What we've been doing in small claims will now be the universal way to handle it, and you don't have the divided docket in justice court anymore, you'll just have the small claims to do everything.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Great. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask that our comments be placed in the journal. Reduced to writing and placed in the journal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield, please?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Sure, Larry.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Hey, Judge, thanks for your diligence working over these last six years on this bill. And I want to ask you what exactly do you do to county courts at law in this bill?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Really, the biggest thing for county courts at law is that we've always had the -- what's the upper limit's going to be?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: (Inaudible ) some of them are hundred thousand and some of them are more.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Right. And what it does now, it makes it uniform across the board. Two hundred thousand. For all of those that were lower than two hundred thousand, I think there were fifty-nine courts at law that were above that, they're still above that and they are not affected. So, the ones that were lower money value than two hundred are now up to two hundred, and there were a lot of those. The ones that were above it are not affected.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Now does it change any of the jurisdiction, like currently some of them don't have family law jurisdiction, don't have criminal law jurisdiction or --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. The only jurisdictional change is the increase in the limit that for those that were below the uniform two hundred to two hundred.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. And then to the juvenile court board, did you do any changes other than the specific jurisdiction?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I think that's the only change to the juvenile board.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. Now what about district judge, district courts. What changes have you made with them?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: District courts, I think part of the biggest change there were some statutory references in cases that indicated that the minimum might be two hundred dollars instead of five hundred, there was a difference on that. And we've made it five for the minimum jurisdictional amount.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. What about the visiting judges? What -- How would your bill impact visiting judges?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: The only way, and the biggest change in visiting judge is really not a change, it just clarifies an issue. You know, a long time ago; at least two decades ago or more, we went to these regional judges or presiding judges in each region.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And they actually assigned judges, if somebody's been refused or disqualified, they assigned the judge. But there was some old statutory language that the governor makes those appointments. Because before we had those regional presiding judges that's who did it in times of disqualification. And this just clarifies that it's the regional presiding judge that does those appointments.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. So -- Because there's some people that had some concerns about that. And currently those -- those regional judges, they were appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay. So you're not changing that? I'd heard somebody say that you were going to allow county commissioners to decide that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. It's -- it's just -- there was some archaic and unused language. I mean the whole time I was on the bench we never had the governor making those things, and there was always some regional presiding judge.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I've never even heard that.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yeah. And but it was out there, and there was some language on that. And it just clarifies that it's the way we've done it. And, of course, there's some language that was talked about district judges being able to transfer cases among each and other, and things like that.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Can they still do that?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Huh?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Can they still do that?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. Yes. They can. Before it had to be five or more to do it, unless you had a specific statute, now it's two or more.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Two or more judges.
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Two or more judges, in the same county.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So let's say that a judge's next door neighbor ends up before him, and maybe it's close to whether he should refuse himself. Maybe he's a bad neighbor and he -- maybe it's not a good thing. So now, if there's more than two judges, is that two or more or --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: It will be two or more that can provide for transfer of cases.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So they can transfer that case over there?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Right. Or if one judge, say gets a capital murder case or gets a huge case that's going or a take a long time, a class action case to try; then they can adjust their dockets and let the other one do some and --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: What if they wanted to put the tax cases all in one judge, can they do that? Because he has an expertise in the tax cases or a special formula and everybody likes to do it that way? Can they do that under your bill?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I would think a they could do that now if there are two or more, just like they could before if there were five or more.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Now, there's a question about associate judges. Now, that's different than what we've been talking about --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: -- as far as visiting judges?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Commission ers can appoint -- can commissioners, can they appoint associate judges?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No. No. The role -- the role of county commissioners is just whether or not they want to pay for their being associate judges or not. If we wanted to, in essence, create the position by paying for it. The associate judges are appointed either by -- if it's an associate judge for one judge, that judge does it. If it's the majority it's the majority of judges there.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So does your bill say -- change anything related to associate judges?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: What it -- What it does now, there's specific authorization for each county that has them. And this would make it broader. If commissioners court, if a judge wants an associate judge and goes to commissioners court in any particular county and the commissioners feel like it's -- because of docket load is necessary you --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So you're opening up and allowing that it -- currently they have to be prescribed by statute, we don't have any and probably never will. But there will be some jurisdictions that may want to have them, and it's -- so we're not putting any unfunded mandates, it's up to the county commissioners to make that decision?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: That's right. And you might be surprised, you know, I think Nolan county has -- has one, and Duval county has one. But it's just kind of what they needed at the time and now you -- if the county commissioners -- if the judge wants to do it and feels like he needs it, and the county commissioners agree they can kind of let that judge have the -- assistance of an associate judge (inaudible).
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And they have those in Harris County; is that correct? They have those in Harris County?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Yes. Yes. I'd say that -- I shouldn't say they do. They are authorized to because it's a county of more than two million. Whether they actually do or not I'm not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: But you're not making them do that?
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: All right. Thank you, Judge, for your -- Is there anything else I need to ask you about and I apologize for --
REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Please vote for the bill and let's go.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 79. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. Record vote's been requested. Record vote's granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Gallego voting aye. Have all voted? Being 106 ayes and 28 nays, House Bill 79 is passed to engrossment. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to recommit House Bill 41 to the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 19. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 19 by Aycock. Relating to hearings on public school educator contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to postpone this bill until a time certain, that being 5:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business, on second reading, House Bill 17. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 17 by Callegari. Relating to the minimum salary for and the minimum service required of certain public school employees.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Caligari.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to postpone this bill until a time certain, tomorrow morning, June 22nd at 9:00 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will meet upon adjournment on June the 21st, 2011, at desk No. 92 in the Texas House of Representatives. This will be a formal meeting to consider HB 41.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, are there any other announcements? If not, Representative Phillips moves that the House stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 21st, 2011 -- I am sorry. Mr. Phillips moves that the House stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, June 22nd, in memory of Walker County Precinct Justice of the Peace Richard Bruce Duncan, who passed away Wednesday June 15th, 2011, in Huntsville, Texas, in Representative Kolkhorst's district. Representative Kolkhorst makes this motion. Is there objection? House stands adjourned. Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, members, those of you on the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, if you would meet at my desk right now
(inaudible) that would be great.
(The House stands adjourned.)
