2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB2529
HB2529 changes the annual state salary supplement for eligible constitutional county judges from 18% of a district judge’s state base salary to 18% of the annual district-judge salary for comparable years of service.
Official caption: Relating to the annual state salary supplement for certain county judges.
Official report lists House author(s): Dean. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB2529 changes the annual state salary supplement for eligible constitutional county judges from 18% of a district judge’s state base salary to 18% of the annual district-judge salary for comparable years of service.
- The existing eligibility test remains: at least 18% of the judge’s functions, or at least 18% of total working hours, must be judicial.
- The new calculation applies to pay periods beginning on or after September 1, 2025.
What does it do?
HB2529 changes the annual state salary supplement for eligible constitutional county judges from 18% of a district judge’s state base salary to 18% of the annual district-judge salary for comparable years of service. The underlying district-judge schedule includes service-based increases after four and eight years. The change lets county-judge service affect the supplement instead of leaving every eligible judge tied to the entry-level base. It does not award county judges the entire salary of a district judge. Final law, Section 1; judicial salary schedule.
The existing eligibility test remains: at least 18% of the judge’s functions, or at least 18% of total working hours, must be judicial. The existing affidavit to the comptroller’s judiciary section and the prohibition on reducing county salary or office funding because of the state supplement also remain. This is not an across-the-board raise for all county officials. Final law; complete supplement provision.
The new calculation applies to pay periods beginning on or after September 1, 2025. A pay period that began earlier stays under the old law, even if payment occurs later. HB2529 sets the formula, not a permanent dollar amount; the referenced appropriations and district-judge salary law determine the salary used in it. Final law, Sections 2–3; history.
What changed along the way?
The introduced, House committee and engrossed texts have the same operative language. The Senate printing and enrolled version retain it, with only printing/certification differences in the comparison. The amendment index lists no amendments, and the committees reported the bill without amendments. The substantive enacted change is the move from the base-salary reference to the comparable-service salary reference, not a new 18% eligibility threshold. Introduced; House committee; engrossed; Senate printing; text index; amendment index.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Eligible county judges with enough service for the higher comparison tier benefit from larger state supplements. The state bears that additional cost; the county cannot offset the supplement by cutting the protected county funding. The law does not guarantee a particular increase for a judge without knowing eligibility, service and the applicable salary schedule. Final law; existing county-funding protection.
The Legislative Budget Board’s May 20, 2025 engrossed fiscal note estimates $885,000 a year in additional General Revenue costs for fiscal years 2026–2030, or $1.77 million for the two years ending August 31, 2027. The March 30 introduced note is the same. They anticipate no significant local-government fiscal effect and state that HB2529 itself makes no appropriation. The estimate uses the then-current $140,000 district-judge base salary; that figure must not be presented as the later salary schedule, which was changed separately. These are the bill’s dated fiscal estimates, not audited spending or a combined estimate of all judicial-pay legislation. Engrossed fiscal note; introduced fiscal note; salary law, including subsequent 2025 changes.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.
