Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 2715 proposes changes to the procedures governing the removal from office of certain local officials in Texas, specifically those under Subchapter B, Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code. The bill aims to standardize and depoliticize the removal process by shifting key responsibilities from local judicial authorities to more regionally neutral officials.

Under current law, removal petitions for non-prosecutorial officers are typically addressed to the local district judge. C.S.H.B. 2715 amends this by requiring that all such petitions, regardless of the officer’s position, be submitted to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region. This presiding judge, in turn, must assign a district judge from a different county within the region to handle the proceedings. Additionally, the presiding judge must appoint a prosecuting attorney from outside the officer’s district to represent the state in these matters, enhancing impartiality and avoiding conflicts of interest.

The bill repeals two existing provisions that previously differentiated how prosecuting attorneys were handled in the removal process, effectively treating all local officers the same in terms of procedural safeguards. These changes apply only to petitions filed on or after the bill’s effective date and do not retroactively affect ongoing or previously filed cases.

The originally filed version of HB 2715 proposed a sweeping new process for suspending and removing elected officials in Texas through the creation of a new chapter in the Government Code—Chapter 621. This version would have granted the Governor unilateral authority to suspend an elected official (statewide or local) for failing to follow state laws, pending a jury trial. During the suspension, the Governor would have been authorized to appoint a temporary replacement. The Attorney General or local county attorneys would represent the state in these removal trials, depending on the official’s jurisdiction. Notably, the bill focused heavily on executive enforcement, centralizing oversight in the Governor’s office and creating a separate removal procedure distinct from existing laws.

In contrast, the Committee Substitute version takes a more restrained and procedural approach. Rather than creating a new removal framework under the Governor’s control, the substitute amends the existing process found in Subchapter B, Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code. It standardizes procedures for removal petitions for all local officials—not just prosecuting attorneys—by requiring such petitions to be directed to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region. The presiding judge must then assign a judge from outside the county to hear the case and must appoint an out-of-district prosecutor to handle the proceedings. This decentralizes the process from local politics and enhances impartiality, but without granting unilateral suspension powers to the Governor.

In essence, while the originally filed version was an assertive, executive-driven reform with significant central authority, the Committee Substitute refocuses the bill into a judicial reform measure that enhances procedural fairness without expanding executive power. It avoids the constitutional and political complexities of gubernatorial suspension authority and instead builds upon the existing statutory framework for removals.

Author (2)

Pat Curry

David Cook

Sponsor (1)

Mayes Middleton

Co-Sponsor (1)

Lois Kolkhorst

Contact the Author

Rep. Pat Curry

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0135

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.512

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2715 would have no significant fiscal impact on the state. Any costs that may arise from the bill’s implementation, such as those associated with appointing judges and prosecutors from outside the jurisdiction where a removal petition is filed—are expected to be absorbed within the existing resources of the relevant judicial and executive agencies.

At the local level, the bill is likewise not expected to impose substantial costs. While local governments might incur some administrative expenses due to procedural changes in the removal process (such as coordination with regional judicial officers or handling external assignments), these are not projected to significantly affect local budgets. The bill does not create new mandates or require new infrastructure, and any incremental administrative burden is considered minimal.

Overall, HB 2715 is crafted to improve procedural fairness in the removal of public officials without imposing notable new financial obligations on state or local entities. The cost-neutral design aligns with the principle of limited government by ensuring that reforms are executed within the bounds of existing frameworks and resources.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 2715 represents a thoughtful and restrained reform aimed at increasing fairness and accountability in the removal process for local elected officials. The bill addresses a recognized procedural gap by standardizing how removal petitions are initiated and adjudicated, ensuring they are handled by judicial actors with greater regional neutrality. By requiring petitions to be submitted to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region and mandating the assignment of judges and prosecutors from outside the affected county, the bill reduces the risk of local bias and political interference. This promotes due process and enhances the public’s trust in the impartiality of government accountability mechanisms.

Importantly, the Committee Substitute strips out broader executive authority that had been proposed in the originally filed version of the bill. That version would have granted the Governor power to suspend officials unilaterally, pending a trial—a move that raised significant concerns about the potential for executive overreach. The final version instead takes a more balanced approach by working within the judicial framework already established in Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code. This revision helps maintain the principle of separation of powers and avoids concentrating disciplinary authority in the executive branch.

From a fiscal standpoint, the Legislative Budget Board has found that the bill would not have a significant financial impact on either the state or local governments. Any minimal costs related to judicial assignments or prosecutorial appointments are expected to be absorbed using existing resources.

In sum, HB 2715 enhances government accountability while protecting individual rights and maintaining limited government. It aligns well with liberty principles and avoids the constitutional and policy risks of the initial version. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2715.

Individual Liberty: The bill protects the due process rights of local elected officials by ensuring that removal petitions are handled by judges and prosecutors from outside the local area. This reduces the chance that political bias or personal vendettas will unfairly influence legal proceedings. By standardizing and neutralizing the process, the bill upholds the principle that individuals—especially those elected by the public—deserve fair and impartial treatment under the law.
Personal Responsibility: While the bill doesn't directly impose new duties on officials or voters, it reinforces the idea that elected officials must be held accountable for their conduct. It preserves existing removal standards but ensures the process is fairer. So, while it doesn’t change the grounds for removal, it clarifies how responsibility is enforced, keeping this principle stable.
Free Enterprise: This bill does not touch the business environment or economic regulations. It’s focused solely on government procedures for official conduct and therefore has no direct impact on free enterprise.
Private Property Rights: The bill does not address land use, zoning, eminent domain, or related issues. Thus, property rights remain unaffected by this bill.
Limited Government: By removing the discretion of local political actors in deciding who handles removal cases, and avoiding centralized executive power (as proposed in the original version), the bill limits the potential for abuse of government authority. It ensures that the process is rule-bound, impartial, and consistent across counties—hallmarks of a government that respects boundaries and operates within a restrained framework.

View Bill Text and Status