2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB2715
HB2715 changes who handles removal proceedings under Subchapter B, Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code.
Official caption: Relating to the removal from office of certain officers of political subdivisions.
Official report lists House author(s): Curry, Cook. 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.
- HB2715 changes who handles removal proceedings under Subchapter B, Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code.
- A removal petition must be addressed to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region where it is filed.
- The covered offices include district and county attorneys, county judges and commissioners, sheriffs, clerks, treasurers, tax assessor-collectors, constables, justices of the peace, independent-school-district trustees and other specified county officers.
- The law repeals the former default that the local county attorney represent the state and the special fallback for removing a county attorney who was not a prosecuting attorney.
What does it do?
HB2715 changes who handles removal proceedings under Subchapter B, Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code. For petitions filed on or after June 20, 2025, the process previously reserved for removing prosecuting attorneys extends to all officers covered by that subchapter. It does not automatically remove anyone or cover every elected official in Texas. Final law
A removal petition must be addressed to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region where it is filed. The district clerk must immediately send that judge a copy. The presiding judge must assign a district judge whose judicial district does not include the county where the petition was filed to conduct the case, and appoint a prosecutor from another judicial district or county, as applicable, within the same administrative judicial region, to represent the state.
The covered offices include district and county attorneys, county judges and commissioners, sheriffs, clerks, treasurers, tax assessor-collectors, constables, justices of the peace, independent-school-district trustees and other specified county officers. The change concerns assignment of the judge and state lawyer; it does not move the filing automatically to a different county or turn removal into a statewide gubernatorial power.
The law repeals the former default that the local county attorney represent the state and the special fallback for removing a county attorney who was not a prosecuting attorney. The existing jury-trial requirement, petition requirements and statutory grounds for removal remain. Allegations alone are not a final removal judgment. Petitions filed before June 20 remain governed by the prior law.
What changed along the way?
The filed bill was very different: it proposed a new Government Code chapter allowing the governor to suspend covered elected officers for failing to follow state law, make provisional appointments, and seek removal through a jury trial. That proposal did not become law.
The House committee substitute replaced that approach with the narrower Chapter 87 judge-and-prosecutor assignment changes. It also changed the transition from the date of an officer’s conduct to the filing date of the removal petition, and added a vote-dependent immediate effective date.
The history, version index, and amendment index show no floor amendments. The House committee, engrossed, Senate and final versions contain the same substantive policy. The House passed it 110–37, with one present but not voting, and the Senate passed it 21–10. The governor signed it June 20; those votes allowed immediate effect.
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?
People bringing removal cases and officials defending them can benefit from having a judge and state lawyer drawn from outside the immediate county or district relationships specified by the law. Whether that produces a better outcome in any case is not guaranteed. Regional presiding judges and the assigned prosecutors take on coordination and case-assignment work, while local county attorneys lose their former default role in these cases.
The May 11 fiscal note expects no significant state or local fiscal effect and assumes costs can be absorbed with existing resources. It does not estimate the legal expenses of a particular official or litigant.
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.
