AUSTIN - A justice on the 13th Court of Appeals says legislation that would take “complex” litigation out of state districts courts would violate the voting rights of Hispanics in South Texas.

Justice Linda Yañez testified against SB 1204, authored by Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, before the Senate State Affairs Committee Monday. The bill would overhaul the court system in Texas.

Yañez said she was particularly concerned about a provision in the bill that would see the establishment of a Panel on Complex Litigation. After testifying, Yañez told the Guardian of her concerns.

“Say you go file your lawsuit in Edinburg and you are suing some insurance company. They get to say, well, we are going to get an expert witness and we think it is a complex case. The judge in Edinburg has to send it to that panel. Who knows who or where the panel would be. If that panel decides it’s a complex case, they get to choose the judge,” Yañez explained.

Yañez said the judge hearing the case could be someone, non-elected, from Houston or Dallas.

“We elect our judges. Now, whether you like that or not, that’s a whole other question. I believe you would need a constitutional amendment to change that. I don’t believe you can legislate that judges other than the elected judges of that area should be hearing cases,” Yañez said.

“If the panel takes a case away from a judge, what does that tell the judge who you have just taken the case away from? That they are not competent? They were elected by the electorate.”

Coming from the Rio Grande Valley, Yañez said Duncan’s bill could affect the Hispanic vote in the Valley.

“The Voting Rights Act protects communities of interest. You want voters to elect people of their own community. It’s South Texas that has Hispanic judges,” Yañez told the Guardian. “This bill is undemocratic.”

Yañez was one of many to testify against Duncan’s bill, including not just trial lawyers but also the Texas Association of Defense Counsel. “The $64,000 question is, what are we trying to fix that is broken?” Yañez said.

Yañez, who has a Master of Laws in the Judicial Process, said that as a member of the Office of Court Administration’s legislative committee she had worked with Duncan on his legislation before it was filed.

“The bill is basically a proposal from the Texans for Lawsuit Reform. Some of my comments and objections were taken and some of that stuff was taken out and did not end up in the bill,” she said.

“They were talking about cutting the number of appellate courts and appellate judges. There are all kinds of theories on whose neck they are trying to cut. You can imagine it’s probably people in South Texas.”

Yañez said she believed Duncan had “good intentions” with his bill because he is concerned about modernizing the court system. She also praised the work of fellow State Affairs Committee members Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville.

During the hearing, Lucio asked Yañez how the Legislature could make the judiciary better. “Maybe we should change the qualifications,” Yañez responded. She later explained to the Guardian how this might work.

“Maybe you should be a lawyer longer. Maybe you should have had so many trials. Maybe you should be specialized in some area of the law that at least raises the bar on your level of competency,” she said.

“I hope the Legislature comes together with members of the Judiciary and the Bar, and maybe even lay people, and come up with a way to improve the system. We need all kinds of ideas coming together to come up with a better system. I am not saying we cannot use improvement. We do. But this is not it.”

A group of state District Judges in Hidalgo County sent a joint letter to Duncan opposing his legislation. The judges included Juan R. Partida, Ricardo Rodriguez, J.R. “Bobby” Flores, Noe Gonzalez, Aide Flores, Rose Guerra Reyna, Letty Lopez, and Mario Ramirez.

“The concept of local control and local standards of care is lost by the “complex courts” provisions,” the judges wrote. “Taking our cases from locally elected judges on the basis of complexity does not add efficiency, nor does it address the laudable purpose of providing necessary resources to the courts of Texas.”

The “complex courts” provision is just one aspect of Duncan’s legislation. In an op-ed, he defended the provision. 

“Many lawsuits in Texas involve complicated issues of law that may include narrow scientific, medical or technical evidence, multiple parties, and dozens of lawyers,” Duncan wrote.

“These time and resource-heavy cases may be heard in courtrooms in which the judge lacks the time and resources to handle them. The result is a bogged-down docket, which generally slows the process at the expense of other litigants. This situation serves no one well.”

In a news release issued to coincide with the hearing, Texans for Lawsuit Reform praised Duncan’s bill. The news release said SB 1204 was also being supported by the Texas Association of Business, the Texas Oil & Gas Association, the Lumberman’s Association of Texas, and the National Federation of Independent Business Texas.

“Senator Duncan’s legislation takes important steps to assure that Texas continues to move toward a model civil justice system that addresses the emerging and complex challenges of the 21st Century,” said TLR President Dick Trabulsi.

“This legislation will improve the efficiency of our courts at every level as well as strengthening the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”

AUSTIN - A justice on the 13th Court of Appeals says legislation that would take “complex” litigation out of state districts courts would violate the voting rights of Hispanics in South Texas.

Justice Linda Yañez testified against SB 1204, authored by Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, before the Senate State Affairs Committee Monday. The bill would overhaul the court system in Texas.

Yañez said she was particularly concerned about a provision in the bill that would see the establishment of a Panel on Complex Litigation. After testifying, Yañez told the Guardian of her concerns.

“Say you go file your lawsuit in Edinburg and you are suing some insurance company. They get to say, well, we are going to get an expert witness and we think it is a complex case. The judge in Edinburg has to send it to that panel. Who knows who or where the panel would be. If that panel decides it’s a complex case, they get to choose the judge,” Yañez explained.

Yañez said the judge hearing the case could be someone, non-elected, from Houston or Dallas.

“We elect our judges. Now, whether you like that or not, that’s a whole other question. I believe you would need a constitutional amendment to change that. I don’t believe you can legislate that judges other than the elected judges of that area should be hearing cases,” Yañez said.

“If the panel takes a case away from a judge, what does that tell the judge who you have just taken the case away from? That they are not competent? They were elected by the electorate.”

Coming from the Rio Grande Valley, Yañez said Duncan’s bill could affect the Hispanic vote in the Valley.

“The Voting Rights Act protects communities of interest. You want voters to elect people of their own community. It’s South Texas that has Hispanic judges,” Yañez told the Guardian. “This bill is undemocratic.”

Yañez was one of many to testify against Duncan’s bill, including not just trial lawyers but also the Texas Association of Defense Counsel. “The $64,000 question is, what are we trying to fix that is broken?” Yañez said.

Yañez, who has a Master of Laws in the Judicial Process, said that as a member of the Office of Court Administration’s legislative committee she had worked with Duncan on his legislation before it was filed.

“The bill is basically a proposal from the Texans for Lawsuit Reform. Some of my comments and objections were taken and some of that stuff was taken out and did not end up in the bill,” she said.

“They were talking about cutting the number of appellate courts and appellate judges. There are all kinds of theories on whose neck they are trying to cut. You can imagine it’s probably people in South Texas.”

Yañez said she believed Duncan had “good intentions” with his bill because he is concerned about modernizing the court system. She also praised the work of fellow State Affairs Committee members Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville.

During the hearing, Lucio asked Yañez how the Legislature could make the judiciary better. “Maybe we should change the qualifications,” Yañez responded. She later explained to the Guardian how this might work.

“Maybe you should be a lawyer longer. Maybe you should have had so many trials. Maybe you should be specialized in some area of the law that at least raises the bar on your level of competency,” she said.

“I hope the Legislature comes together with members of the Judiciary and the Bar, and maybe even lay people, and come up with a way to improve the system. We need all kinds of ideas coming together to come up with a better system. I am not saying we cannot use improvement. We do. But this is not it.”

A group of state District Judges in Hidalgo County sent a joint letter to Duncan opposing his legislation. The judges included Juan R. Partida, Ricardo Rodriguez, J.R. “Bobby” Flores, Noe Gonzalez, Aide Flores, Rose Guerra Reyna, Letty Lopez, and Mario Ramirez.

“The concept of local control and local standards of care is lost by the “complex courts” provisions,” the judges wrote. “Taking our cases from locally elected judges on the basis of complexity does not add efficiency, nor does it address the laudable purpose of providing necessary resources to the courts of Texas.”

The “complex courts” provision is just one aspect of Duncan’s legislation. In an op-ed, he defended the provision. 

“Many lawsuits in Texas involve complicated issues of law that may include narrow scientific, medical or technical evidence, multiple parties, and dozens of lawyers,” Duncan wrote.

“These time and resource-heavy cases may be heard in courtrooms in which the judge lacks the time and resources to handle them. The result is a bogged-down docket, which generally slows the process at the expense of other litigants. This situation serves no one well.”

In a news release issued to coincide with the hearing, Texans for Lawsuit Reform praised Duncan’s bill. The news release said SB 1204 was also being supported by the Texas Association of Business, the Texas Oil & Gas Association, the Lumberman’s Association of Texas, and the National Federation of Independent Business Texas.

“Senator Duncan’s legislation takes important steps to assure that Texas continues to move toward a model civil justice system that addresses the emerging and complex challenges of the 21st Century,” said TLR President Dick Trabulsi.

“This legislation will improve the efficiency of our courts at every level as well as strengthening the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”