Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Qualifications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House considers changing justice-court qualifications for new judges; bill circled for further work
Summary
Rep. Hall brought a second-substitute of HB 160 to require law-school graduation for new justice court judges in higher-class counties while grandfathering current judges; members debated adding or removing county classes and ultimately voted to circle the bill for more drafting.
Representative Hall presented second-substitute HB 160, describing it as a compromise developed with the administrative office of the courts, the League of Cities and Towns and the Association of Counties. Hall said the substitute requires all new justice court judges in first-, second- and third-class counties to be law-school graduates while continuing the existing educational standards in fourth-, fifth- and sixth-class counties and allowing unlimited grandfathering for current judges.
Hall emphasized constitutional concerns and the importance of law training at the justice-court level because those judges preside over matters involving constitutional rights and potential incarceration. "Requiring judges to be law trained … will increase the likelihood that judges get their rulings right," Hall said.
Representative Chu raised rural-county concerns and proposed amendments that would broaden or shift which county classes are covered; the floor engaged in detailed line-by-line amendment discussion and a substitute motion to circle the bill was made and agreed to so sponsors could refine language.
Members representing rural counties said recruiting law-trained judges can be difficult and welcomed grandfathering and phased implementation language.
What happens next: The House placed the bill on a circled/hold status to allow sponsors to work with stakeholders and perfect the county-class definitions and grammatical changes before rescheduling further floor action.
