Texas Senate Bill SB742

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 3/19/09
• Voted on by Senate: 4/2/09
• Out of House Committee: 5/22/09
• Voted on by House: 5/27/09
• Governor Action: 6/19/09
• Enrolled: 5/28/09
• Passed: 6/19/09

Caption

Relating to the qualifications to serve as an associate judge or visiting associate judge in certain family law proceedings.

Impact

The implications of SB742 affect state law significantly, particularly in the family court system. By establishing stricter criteria for judicial appointments, the bill intends to enhance the overall competency and professionalism within family law proceedings. This may lead to a more consistent application of justice and potentially better outcomes for families involved in the judicial process. However, it could also limit the pool of eligible candidates, as fewer individuals may meet the newly defined standards, which may cause delays in filling judicial vacancies.

Summary

SB742 is a legislative bill that seeks to amend the Family Code regarding the qualifications necessary to serve as an associate judge or visiting associate judge in family law proceedings. The bill revises certain eligibility requirements, stipulating that individuals must either be retired judges listed on a specific state-maintained registry or have been licensed to practice law in Texas and actively practicing or serving as a judge for a minimum of four years prior to their appointment. This change aims to streamline the appointment process and ensure that appointed judges possess appropriate levels of experience and expertise in the legal field.

Contention

Discussion around SB742 has fostered some contention as stakeholders weigh the benefits of heightened standards against concerns regarding accessibility and judicial diversity. Proponents of the bill argue that ensuring judges have substantial legal backgrounds will improve legal proceedings and uphold the integrity of the court system. Conversely, critics raise concerns that the new qualifications may inadvertently exclude capable individuals who may not meet the technical criteria despite having relevant experience and knowledge. This debate highlights the tension between maintaining high judicial standards and ensuring diverse representation and access to the judiciary.