Nueces County to close Justice of the Peace Precinct 1 Place 2 at end of incumbent’s term; court to study wider JP consolidation

The Nueces County Commissioners Court voted 3–2 on Oct. 8 to approve a plan that will abolish the office of Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1 Place 2, effective Dec. 31, 2026, — the end of the current office holder’s term — and to instruct a study of the county’s nine JP courts and associated staffing over the next 12 months.

Residents, judges and court staff filled the county courtroom for a public hearing that opened with a steady stream of comments urging the court not to move quickly. "In regards to closing the Justice of the Peace office, I think this is a decision that affects a lot of people's lives," said James Miles, a resident who spoke during the hearing. Dozens of others — including sitting JP judges and school and social-service workers — said the court should delay any action to allow more data and public input.

Why it matters: Precinct 1 covers a large and populous area of the county and, unlike other precincts, currently has three JP positions. Supporters of the change said countywide case data show uneven caseloads across the nine JP offices and that some courts have capacity to absorb additional docket volume. Opponents said the move would reduce local access to justice for low‑income and rural residents and urged a more comprehensive, countywide assessment before altering judicial posts.

Key facts and vote: The court’s action was the result of an amended motion. Commissioner Jarred Pusley originally moved to abolish JP Precinct 1 Place 2 at the end of the current term. Commissioner Chesney offered an amendment to direct a 12‑month study of all JP courts and staffing and to use that period to plan any further consolidations; the amended motion carried 3–2. The final vote was recorded as "3 ayes, 2 noes." The court did not immediately reassign staff or close the office; the incumbent will remain through Dec. 31, 2026.

What residents told the court: Speakers described concerns about transportation, eviction dockets and mental‑health warrants handled by the local JP office. Robert Gonzales, JP, Precinct 5 Place 1, told the court the JP offices are often the "tangible" point of access to the judicial system for many residents and warned that consolidating offices could increase burdens on remaining judges. Judge Lucy Rubio (JP, Precinct 1 Place 3) said judges and clerks felt "blindsided" by the pace of the proposal and asked for inclusion in any planning.

Court context and next steps: The court directed Commissioners Pusley and Gonzales to lead a working group to review JP caseloads, geography, staffing and service delivery and to report back within the 12‑month period. The group is to consult judges, court clerks and the county attorney and return recommendations that address access, workload distribution and cost implications. Members of the public and the county’s JP judges will be invited to participate in the study.

Ending: The court’s action preserves the incumbent’s term through 2026 while creating a formal planning process to evaluate whether additional consolidation, boundary changes or other operational shifts are warranted.