Texas Senate Bill SB42

Texas 2017 - 85th Regular

• Filed: 11/14/16

Caption

Relating to the security of courts and judges in the state; establishing a fee.

Impact

If enacted, SB42 will significantly influence the management and financing of judicial security measures across Texas. By instituting a dedicated judicial and court personnel training fee, the bill aims to ensure that adequate resources are available for training security personnel and improving court safety protocols. This will potentially lead to more consistent and effective security practices in courts, significantly benefiting judges, court staff, and the public who visit these facilities. The bill also aims to address the rising concerns of safety in judicial settings.

Summary

SB42, known as the Judge Julie Kocurek Judicial and Courthouse Security Act of 2017, aims to enhance the security of courts and judges within Texas. The bill establishes a framework for court security by requiring the formation of court security committees, which will be responsible for implementing security policies and procedures in municipal courts. Additionally, it mandates the collection of a $5 fee for civil actions to fund judicial and court personnel training, highlighting the need for enhanced training for individuals responsible for court security. This fee will be deposited into a fund specifically allocated for judicial security purposes.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB42 is largely supportive, especially among those who advocate for improved safety measures for judicial personnel. Supporters argue that enhancing security is essential to protect judges and court personnel from threats, thereby allowing the judiciary to function without fear of intimidation. However, there are concerns about the practicality of funding and implementing these security measures effectively, as well as potential implications for civil access to the courts due to the additional fees imposed.

Contention

Notable points of contention include discussions around the imposition of fees for accessing judicial processes, which some critics argue could hinder access to justice for low-income individuals. Additionally, there are concerns about the balance between increasing security and maintaining open and accessible courts. The establishment of court security committees also raises questions regarding their composition and authority in managing the budget and resources allocated for security, prompting debates about local autonomy versus centralized control in making judicial policy.