Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judges press county for maximum supplement after state raises district judge base pay
Summary
Judicial officers told commissioners the state’s one-time increase to the district judge base salary will not raise local judges’ pay unless the county increases supplements; judges urged the court to adopt the statutory maximum county supplement to prevent El Paso from remaining among the lowest-paid jurisdictions in Texas.
Judicial officers addressed the El Paso County Commissioners Court Thursday during a budget hearing and urged the court to adopt the largest county supplement allowed under recent state law changes after the Texas Legislature increased the state-funded base salary for district court judges.
Valeria Fernandez of the county’s Human Resources Office summarized the legislative change (Senate Bill 293) that raises the state-funded tier-one base salary for district court judges from $140,000 to $175,100, effective Sept. 1, 2025. Fernandez explained the law’s downstream effect: county-funded judges whose pay is benchmarked to district judges (county court-at-law judges, probate judges, associate judges) also face increased local costs unless the county modifies its supplement levels.
Judges told the court the increase, while welcome, leaves El Paso’s judiciary undercompensated unless the county increases the locally funded supplement. Judge Emsu Kurita, who the court identified as local administrative judge, asked commissioners to “max out the supplement” to the $25,000 level permitted under the statute and said failing to do so would leave El Paso judges among the lowest-paid in the state. Judge Kurita and other judges argued that judicial compensation has lagged for a decade and that pay is essential to attract and retain qualified candidates while preserving the judiciary’s independence.
Judge Ana Perez (representing district judges) and Chief Justice Maria Salas Mendoza of the Court of Appeals also urged commissioners to consider the broader workload and new statutory requirements applied by the Legislature — for example, new reporting and timing requirements for appeals and other administrative dockets — when weighing compensation decisions. Judges said some new legislative duties will increase judicial and court staff workload and that county funding decisions should account for those expanded responsibilities.
County commissioners asked questions about options and fiscal impacts: HR staff presented three budget options showing different county supplement scenarios and associated FY26 cost impacts, and commissioners asked for an additional figure showing the effect of adopting the statutory maximum supplement for district judges (an option county staff did not recommend as fiscally advisable to include in the initial staff packet). Commissioners also discussed the county’s broader budget pressures and the need for a balanced approach across county operations.
No final decision was made at the June 26 meeting; commissioners requested further information and expressed intent to weigh judicial compensation against fiscal constraints. Judges said they will continue to provide data and to work with the commission to find a path forward.
Why it matters: The state-ordered increase in the district judge base salary changes how counties fund local judicial salaries where supplements are permitted. If the county does not raise its supplement level, local judges and related county-funded judicial positions could fall further behind peer jurisdictions; compensation decisions affect recruitment, retention and court operations.
