Texas

A new report from the NCSC and IAALS highlights how enforcing court rules that require expedited actions can improve fairness, cost, and efficiency in the civil justice system while also relieving case backlogs exacerbated by the pandemic.

In December 2020, the Texas Commission on Judicial Selection submitted its report on the fairness, effectiveness, and desirability of partisan elections for judicial selection in Texas. Although the commission recommended against the current partisan elections method, the members did not agree on an alternative method for judicial selection and will continue studying potential reforms.

In the past few months, there have been encouraging updates in several states aimed at more effectively addressing the legal needs of disaster survivors. Two states—Louisiana and Texas—implemented various tools to help streamline litigation arising from these disasters.

Last year, IAALS and the National Center for State Courts released a new Roadmap for Implementation to guide state courts implementing civil justice reform efforts. IAALS and NCSC will ultimately work with one state from each region of the United States as it follows the Roadmap through implementation of civil justice reform. Idaho and Maine were previously announced as Roadmap states and we are excited to add Texas and Missouri to this list. I was fortunate to visit both states last month to support their reform efforts.

The U.S. legal system is already hard to navigate and understand, but even more so in the aftermath of a natural disaster. In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, and in preparation for Hurricane Irma, the legal community is coming together in different ways to make legal aid more accessible to people in affected areas.

The Texas Lawyer recently reported on Texas’ downward trend in civil lawsuits, which have dropped 17 percent over the last 10 years. The change in numbers presents many questions, with different perspectives as to the cause on all sides. Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht has said that the state’s judiciary must delve further into the statistics to find answers.

Texas' Republican primary elections on March 4 have brought together an unusual combination of candidates and campaign contributors, at least with respect to the state's highest court. The incumbent Republican justices have received support from a typical source—advocates of tort reform and limitations on civil lawsuits—but their Republican challengers are benefiting from donations by trial attorneys and left-of-center groups, who historically have backed Democratic candidates.

Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson of the Supreme Court of Texas announced this week that he will resign from the court effective October 1. He has served on the court since 2001. Chief Justice Jefferson implemented a number of administrative innovations during his tenure as chief. Chief Justice Jefferson is a founding member of the O'Connor Advisory Committee to the Quality Judges Initiative, having joined the committee soon after it was established in late 2009.

In November, the Texas Supreme Court issued long-awaited rules for expedited actions, proposing a mandatory expedited process for cases of $100,000 or less. The Texas Supreme Court has since issued revised final rules, which became effective March 1, 2013. Despite considerable public commentary on the mandatory nature of the rules, the Expedited Actions process under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 remains mandatory for cases of $100,000 or less.

Two recent events have us reflecting on the reasons why it is important to collect and share data. At IAALS, we have concluded our final study of Colorado’s Simplified Procedure (Rule 16.1), which was enacted in 2004. In Texas, the Supreme Court has newly adopted a Rule for Expedited Actions (Rule 169). Both rules intend to provide a shorter, less expensive process for smaller cases. They also have aspects similar to various short, summary, and expedited civil action programs in place around the country.