According to the fiscal implications of SB 2878 are significant, with a projected negative impact of approximately $5.56 million to General Revenue-related funds over the 2026–2027 biennium, and continued growing costs in subsequent years. The financial impact stems primarily from the creation of numerous new judicial positions—including district courts, statutory county courts, probate courts, and appellate court divisions—as well as the establishment of new district attorney offices and court administrative functions. These expansions entail recurring costs for judicial salaries, benefits, administrative support, and judicial travel expenses.

A major driver of the fiscal cost is the creation of 12 new district courts, two appellate court positions, and two new district attorney offices, with phased implementations beginning in fiscal year 2026. For example, the Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA) estimates needing over $945,000 in FY 2026 alone for new judicial salaries and over $1.56 million in FY 2027 for prorated costs from newly added courts. Additionally, new compensation structures for local administrative judges, visiting judges, and judicial mentorships will further raise state expenditures. The bill authorizes salary supplements for judges in business courts and border regions, with projected costs of around $180,000 annually just for business court stipends.

Other provisions also carry costs: the establishment of a Court Leadership Conference by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) adds nearly $160,000 annually, and a one-time $40,000 technology upgrade is needed for reporting prosecutor data. Retirement contributions and insurance benefits for new personnel also increase state obligations significantly, amounting to over $700,000 combined in FY 2027. While these reforms are framed as essential for improving judicial efficiency and capacity, they represent a sustained and growing fiscal commitment.

At the local level, counties will be financially responsible for the non-salary operational expenses of the new courts, including facilities, staff, and local law enforcement coordination. The increased criminal penalties, particularly for harassment against judges and court personnel, may also lead to greater demands on local correctional resources, though the exact impact cannot currently be estimated. Overall, while the bill does not include a direct appropriation, it creates a legal framework that necessitates substantial state and local financial outlays to be fully implemented.

SB 2878, though introduced as a necessary modernization of the Texas judiciary, presents significant structural, fiscal, and liberty-oriented concerns that outweigh its benefits. While the bill is framed as a routine omnibus judiciary measure backed by workload data, its sheer breadth and impact—spanning 14 articles and affecting virtually every facet of the judicial branch—represent a level of government expansion inconsistent with core principles of limited government and fiscal restraint.

The most substantial objection lies in its expansive creation of new judicial offices and administrative roles across numerous counties. With more than a dozen new judicial districts and several new statutory courts, the bill significantly enlarges the size of the state’s judiciary, without corresponding reductions or consolidations elsewhere. This structural growth is accompanied by a projected cost to General Revenue of over $5.5 million in the upcoming biennium, escalating to nearly $5 million annually by 2030. These expenditures are driven by salary increases, new court support infrastructure, expanded compensation for visiting and business court judges, and the creation of new district attorney offices. Without corresponding offsets or sunset mechanisms, this reflects a permanent fiscal burden that runs contrary to responsible, limited budgeting.

From a liberty-focused lens, the bill’s expansion of criminal penalties—particularly the reclassification of certain harassment offenses as state jail felonies or third-degree felonies—raises due process and proportionality concerns. Such enhancements could lead to increased prosecutorial leverage and incarceration without clear evidence that existing laws are insufficient. The bill also increases the scope of judicial authority through remote proceedings and broader assignments of visiting judges, risking an erosion of direct local accountability.

Moreover, while the bill includes youth diversion reforms and adjustments to magistrate qualifications that could benefit procedural fairness, these are overshadowed by the bill’s broader centralization of authority and added administrative complexity. For instance, the changes to court administration and judicial compensation frameworks introduce new layers of bureaucracy and salary entitlements tied to the number of courts or personnel overseen, rather than performance or outcomes. This creates perverse incentives for growth in the judiciary rather than efficient service delivery.

Finally, although some reforms—like the removal of exclusive eminent domain jurisdiction from certain probate courts—align with private property protections, such improvements are minor compared to the larger trends toward expansion and increased state authority throughout the bill. The inclusion of numerous unrelated provisions under a single omnibus structure further complicates legislative transparency and accountability, making meaningful deliberation on individual reforms difficult.

In conclusion, SB 2878 is a well-intentioned but overreaching judicial reform bill that ultimately undermines the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and procedural restraint. While court modernization is necessary, this bill does not strike the right balance and should be rejected in its current form. A more targeted, incremental approach—prioritizing cost-neutral reforms and greater transparency—would better serve both the judiciary and the public interest. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2878.

• Individual Liberty: Although the bill includes some provisions aimed at juvenile diversion and court transparency, it also expands the state’s authority to penalize individuals, particularly through the enhancement of criminal penalties for harassment of court employees and judges. These enhancements—elevating misdemeanors to state jail or third-degree felonies—could result in increased incarceration, higher bail, and longer pretrial detention. Without a clear, data-driven justification for why existing penalties are insufficient, this expansion of state power poses risks to due process and proportionality in criminal justice, potentially chilling speech or conduct that might be deemed subjective or context-dependent.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill modestly reinforces personal accountability by incorporating reforms to juvenile diversion programs, allowing young defendants the opportunity to discharge fines through community service or tutoring rather than punitive financial burdens. It also creates clearer structures for eligibility and participation in these programs, encouraging rehabilitation over punishment. However, this benefit is counterbalanced by new provisions that shift more judicial discretion toward remote administration and centralized authority, which may distance judges from the individuals appearing before them and diminish personalized, accountable decision-making.
• Free Enterprise: The bill’s effect on economic freedom is generally neutral, with some modest improvements in judicial efficiency and document standardization that could reduce transaction costs for legal and business entities. However, the creation of business courts with state-funded salary supplements introduces a new class of specialized judges with elevated compensation tied to caseload and region, which may create perceptions of inequity or preferential treatment. Additionally, increasing government costs through expanded court structures could lead to higher long-term taxes or fees that burden private enterprise indirectly.
• Private Property Rights: While the bill does include a modest improvement to private property protections—most notably, the repeal of exclusive eminent domain jurisdiction in Montgomery County’s statutory probate court—it also introduces fiscal policies likely to undermine property rights in practice. The creation of numerous new courts and administrative positions is projected to increase the state’s general revenue obligations significantly. As local governments are responsible for many of the operational costs associated with these new judicial entities, counties may be compelled to raise property taxes to cover expanded infrastructure, staffing, and courthouse security. This indirect but foreseeable consequence represents an erosion of private property rights, as homeowners and landowners could face greater financial burdens without direct input or recourse. Thus, while some structural reforms support property access and fairness, the broader fiscal implications result in a mixed impact on this principle.
• Limited Government: SB 2878 significantly violates the principle of limited government. It authorizes the creation of at least 12 new judicial districts, multiple statutory county courts, and new district attorney offices, along with expanded administrative roles, broader compensation structures, and permanent new costs. The bill’s biennial fiscal note projects over $5.5 million in new general revenue expenditures, growing to nearly $5 million annually. There is no built-in sunset or performance review for these expansions, and the bill empowers state and regional judicial officers with greater discretion over assignments and salaries. These structural and fiscal expansions represent a permanent enlargement of state power, unaccompanied by offsetting efficiencies or meaningful constraints.

• HB 5060 (Same As)