The 83rd Legislature tasked the Office of Court Administration (OCA), through the passage of
Senate Bill 1080, with studying the adequacy and appropriateness of additional compensation
paid to a county judge of a constitutional county court who:
1. Serves in a county that does not have a county court at law; and
2. Has at least jurisdiction of:
a. Class A and Class B misdemeanors cases;
b. Probate matters;
c. Guardianship matters; and
d. Matters of mental health.
OCA used caseload data, salary information and statistics, and conducted a survey of
constitutional county judges to complete this study.
Background
In the spring of 2013, during legislative hearings regarding SB 1080, lawmakers, judges and
advocacy groups expressed interest over the sufficiency of the state supplement paid to county
judges. The underlying theme of the legislative testimony was that the judicial workload of the
county judge was not in tandem with the supplement provided by the state to complete their
judicial functions. Judicial duties for a county judge include hearing civil, probate, misdemeanor,
juvenile and mental health cases.
The state supplement is currently $15,000 annually and is paid to county judges that certify they
spend 40% or more of their time on judicial functions.4 The supplement has remained at the same
level for nearly 10 years. It was set at $15,000 in 2005, raised from $10,000, in 1999. In Fiscal
Years 2014 and 2015, 216 of the 254 county judges in Texas received the state supplement.
Remarks before the Texas Senate Jurisprudence Committee included testimony that the current
supplement is the “biggest bargain received in the judicial branch,”6 while others said they were
concerned that county judges are spending “two weeks of each month on judicial duties,” while
also being expected to run and act as chief executive officer of their county at the same time.
Constitutional County Judge Survey
In the fall of 2014, the OCA developed and administered a survey on the adequacy and appropriateness of the state supplement provided to constitutional county judges. The survey was sent to 254 county judges via email. OCA received and analyzed the responses from Sept. 30, 2014, through Oct. 8, 2014. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed responded for a total of 162 responses. Some judges that responded do not receive the state supplement because they have limited or no judicial functions. Eighty seven percent of respondents said they spend 40 percent or more of their time on judicial functions, with 62 percent of those surveyed reporting they spend 50 percent of time on judicial duties.
Recommendations
For uniformity and similarity to other county level supplements and salaries, the Legislature should consider linking the Constitutional County Judge Supplement to a percentage of the state salary of a district court judge. If the Legislature chooses to link the supplement to the state salary of a district court judge, the Legislature should consider setting the percentage between 15-20%.8 In the alternative, based upon the value to the state and the extensive judicial duties performed by county judges, the Legislature should consider increasing the supplement to $25,000.
Consideration should be given to the fact that the supplement has not been increased in 10 years and that the supplement is being outpaced by inflation. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics county judge supplement would need to be increased by 28.4% to $19,274 to keep up with inflation through the end of the next biennium. The Legislature should consider, at a minimum, increasing the supplement to $20,000 to keep pace with inflationary factors. To ensure that the salary supplement amount is reviewed for adequacy on a more regular basis, consideration should be given to authorizing the Judicial Compensation Commission to review and make recommendations on the supplement in their biennial report when they deem appropriate.
To view the study in full, go
to http://www.txcourts.gov/media/
683099/County-Judge-Salary-
Study-FINAL.pdf.