logo
Lawmakers reach last-minute deal on pay raises for Texas judges

Lawmakers reach last-minute deal on pay raises for Texas judges

Yahoo2 days ago

AUSTIN (Nexstar) – Lawmakers worked into the final hours of the legislative session to reach an agreement to provide pay raises for Texas judges. The legislation led to a sharp divide between the House and Senate over how the raises would affect pensions for lawmakers.
Senate Bill 293 calls for raising the pay for judges to $175,000 per year. That's a 25% increase from the current $140,000 salary. The legislation comes amid concern that Texas lags behind other states in judicial pay.
'Texas cannot afford to continue to lose talent due to a lack of appropriate compensation,' the analysis for SB 293 states.
The idea of raising pay for judges has bipartisan support. The division comes over how those raises affect funds for retiring lawmakers. Currently, pensions for lawmakers are calculated as a percentage of the base pay for judges. Raising judges pay would also raise retirement benefits for lawmakers.
Some House members believed that amounted to unethically approving a benefit for themselves. Their legislation included an amendment to keep decouple lawmaker pensions from judicial base pay, instead keeping it linked to the current level of $140,000.
'I do not believe, speaking for me that this is the right way for us to consider and/or pass increases to our legislative retirement,' Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, said Friday, explaining why the House added the amendment. He called on the Senate to accept the House amendment.
'I can tell you that if they want judges to get a pay raise, then they should move to concur with the House changes to Senate Bill 293, and in the interim and next session, we can have and should have a conversation about legislative compensation, including our retirement benefits,' Leach said.
When the legislation came before the Senate Friday night, Sen. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, raised a point of order, saying that the amendment was not germane to the legislation. He agreed that legislation to revamp how lawmaker pensions are calculated should happen separately from SB 293.
The point of order was sustained, potentially killing SB 293 and pay raises for judges. Senators called on House members to remove the amendment. House members pushed to keep the measure to decouple judicial pay from pensions for lawmakers.
With the House and Senate deadlocked, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock weighed in with a potential compromise. On Saturday, he sent a memo to members of the legislature, including proposed language for the bill. Blacklock's proposal would maintain the link between judicial pay and legislator pensions, but the impact of a pay raise approved this session would not immediately affect those pensions. Instead, Blacklock proposes that the next legislature would determine the effect.
'As you know, judicial salaries in Texas currently rank 49th in the Nation – an embarrassment that is making it harder and harder to attract and retain qualified, hard-working judges capable of delivering a high quality of justice to Texas families and businesses across our State,' Blacklock wrote. He added that he fears the long-range impact, should the impasse keep judges from getting a raise.
'If that happens, it is not the judges themselves but our Texas justice system – which should be the envy of the world – that will suffer most, along with the thousands of Texans who seek justice in our courts every day,' Blacklock wrote.
Monday afternoon, word of the agreement was announced in the Senate. 'The House and the Senate came together, and the result of the conference committee report and the legislation will lead to the judges getting this raise,' Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said as she laid out the conference committee report.
'I don't think I've ever worked so hard on a bill that wasn't mine,' Sen. Menéndez said, acknowledging the difficulty of the negotiations that started after his point of order, then stretched into the final day of the session.
'We went over and met with our House colleagues, and all 10 of us signed the conference committee report, because every person in the state of Texas recognizes that our judiciary and our judges needed a much needed raise so we can continue to attract competent persons to our judiciary,' he said.
Senators did not discuss specifics of the agreement on the floor. In the House, Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas asked Rep. Leach to give further details.
'The bill raises the judicial base pay, salary, 25% to $175,000 along with that, the legislative retirement is linked, at least initially, to that $175,000,' Leach explained. He said going forward, the Texas Ethics Commission will decide how much legislative retirement pay should rise.
'We are requiring the Texas Ethics Commission every five years to adjust the legislative class retirement accordingly, taking into account various factors. Of those factors they're allowed to consider all statewide elected official judges from all branches of government, judicial, legislative and executive,' Leach said, responding to Anchia's question.
Leach said the changes allow the legislature to increase judicial pay, and in the future do so without worrying about it affecting the pensions of lawmakers. 'That's, I think, the real big win in this bill,' he concluded.
The measure passed 114-26. The legislation now goes to Governor Abbott for approval.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Hakeem Jeffries calls Elon Musk's attacks on Trump-backed budget bill "the stone-cold reality"
Hakeem Jeffries calls Elon Musk's attacks on Trump-backed budget bill "the stone-cold reality"

CBS News

time9 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Hakeem Jeffries calls Elon Musk's attacks on Trump-backed budget bill "the stone-cold reality"

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, says he agrees with Elon Musk's characterization of President Trump's domestic policy bill as a "disgusting abomination," torching what he called a "Republican civil war" among GOP lawmakers in an interview with CBS News. "What Elon Musk said is the stone-cold reality," Jeffries said in an interview with "CBS Evening News" co-anchor Maurice DuBois of Mr. Trump's "big, beautiful bill" — which passed the House last month. "When you try to take away healthcare from more than 15 million Americans, that's a disgusting abomination," Jeffries said of the cuts to Medicaid included in the bill. "When you are endeavoring to rip food, literally, out of the mouths of children, veterans and seniors with the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history, that is a disgusting abomination. And it's certainly a disgusting abomination, when all of this is being done to provide massive tax breaks to their billionaire donors, and they're going to stick the American people with the bill and increase the debt by trillions of dollars." Musk's "disgusting abomination" comments came in a post on X Tuesday, calling the bill "outrageous" and "pork-filled." Musk and Jeffries' criticisms of the bill differ: Musk has attacked the legislation's price tag, while Jeffries has criticized its cuts to Medicaid and food stamp spending — though the Democratic leader has also pushed back on its cost. Musk previously criticized the bill last month, telling "CBS Sunday Morning" correspondent David Pogue he's "disappointed" by the bill's cost. His comments are striking because Musk was previously a key ally of President Trump, helping to lead the Trump administration's effort to reduce the size of the federal government. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has pushed back against Musk, defending the bill and calling his criticisms "flat wrong." Musk's criticisms come as Senate Republicans prepare to take up the domestic policy bill, which extends Mr. Trump's signature 2017 tax cuts, imposes work requirements on some Medicaid recipients, adds new restrictions to food stamps and boosts border spending. Some senators are pushing for changes — including a few who are skeptical of its changes to Medicaid. Any changes passed by the Senate will also need to be approved by the House. "What we see right now is a Republican civil war," Jeffries said. "Elon Musk is attacking the GOP tax scam, this reckless budget that's going to hurt everyday Americans. House Republicans are attacking Senate Republicans, Senate Republicans are attacking House Republicans." See more from the interview with Jeffries on the "CBS Evening News" Thursday.

Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Stumbles in Senate as Musk Ramps Up Bid to ‘Kill' It
Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Stumbles in Senate as Musk Ramps Up Bid to ‘Kill' It

Time​ Magazine

time22 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Stumbles in Senate as Musk Ramps Up Bid to ‘Kill' It

President Donald Trump's sprawling tax-and-spending proposal—touted as the centerpiece of his second-term agenda—is facing intensifying resistance in the Senate, as fresh concerns about its impact on the deficit and a ramped-up campaign by Elon Musk to torpedo the entire package threaten to derail the legislation's fragile path to passage. At the center of the turmoil on Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is a sobering new assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which reported Wednesday that the bill would add $2.4 trillion to federal deficits over the next decade while stripping health coverage from nearly 11 million Americans, largely through deep Medicaid cuts and the imposition of new work requirements. That analysis sparked alarm among some Senate Republicans, several of whom are demanding substantial changes. 'I think Congress is sort of like a bad behaving teenager when it comes to spending,' Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of the Republicans threatening to vote against the bill, told TIME on Wednesday. 'If you had a teenager that you were giving $100 a week and they wasted all of it on gambling or on booze, would you give them $200?' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and other prominent Republicans tried to dismiss the CBO's projections by arguing its analysis was flawed or biased. But fiscal hawks in the Senate remained dug in, buoyed by former Trump advisor Elon Musk, who extended his all-out offensive against the bill. A day after using his vast social media reach to brand the bill a 'disgusting abomination,' he posted more than two dozen messages on X on Wednesday attacking the legislation, as well as urging his followers to call Congress and 'KILL the BILL.' Musk's ire appears especially focused on how the bill's expansion of the deficit would erase the cost-cutting he hoped to accomplish with the Department of Government Efficiency, which he led under the Trump Administration. He has also expressed concerns with provisions in the House-passed bill that would terminate clean energy tax credits and electric vehicle subsidies established under the Inflation Reduction Act. Tesla Energy, Musk's solar and battery company, has warned that ending those credits 'would threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid.' The sharp reversal has blindsided some Republicans, who were counting on Musk's tacit support. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has spearheaded the bill's passage, tried to stem the fallout by reaching out to Musk directly. 'I hope he comes around,' Johnson said Wednesday, though he added that Musk has not returned his call. Inside the Senate, Johnson's broader strategy—pushing through House priorities quickly and with minimal changes—is beginning to unravel. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota acknowledged that significant changes to the bill are now unavoidable. 'We'll make some modifications to it, strengthen and improve it,' Thune said Tuesday. 'But at the end of the day, the math is simple—51 in the Senate, 218 in the House. That's what we're working toward.' One potential modification Thune has expressed interest in is scaling back the $40,000 state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap in the House version of the bill, an increase from the current $10,000 cap that House Republicans from high-tax states secured as a concession. But not all Republicans agree with the additional spending: 'There really isn't a single Republican senator who cares much about the SALT issue,' Thune told reporters as he departed a meeting with Trump and Senate Republicans on Wednesday evening, saying that they discussed ways to dial that money back. It's a move that could alienate House Republicans from New York and New Jersey, who say their support is contingent on the SALT provision. "Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal," New York Republican Mike Lawler said Wednesday in a post on X. Additionally, the bill's sweeping changes to Medicaid, such as imposing new work requirements, are a sticking point. Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Jim Justice of West Virginia have raised red flags over a provision that would eliminate provider taxes—mechanisms that states use to fund Medicaid—which they argue could shutter rural hospitals. Hawley is also opposed to a so-called 'sick tax' in the bill, which would impose new charges on low-income patients for medical visits. Other Republican Senators, including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, may also put up roadblocks over potential cuts to Medicaid. Trump has personally intervened, holding calls with Sens. Hawley, Paul, and Scott. But there is little evidence he has swayed skeptics. Paul, a libertarian-leaning lawmaker who has vocally pushed back on many Trump Administration policies, told TIME that he plans to vote against the bill over its provision to raise the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars. 'Congress has been acting irresponsibly for decades,' he said. 'We spend $2 trillion more than to come in. They should have a very narrow leash. The only debt ceiling they get should be very, very narrow in time and very, very small in amount. And the more we vote on the debt ceiling, the better. I'd vote on it every three months.' Trump, meanwhile, renewed his calls on Wednesday for scrapping the debt ceiling altogether. The growing litany of disputes has created a daunting legislative gauntlet for Trump's signature bill. Senate committees are now beginning to draft their own version, starting with less controversial sections and leaving the most divisive elements—Medicaid, energy, taxes—for later. Should the Senate approve any amended version, it must still clear the House once again—no small task given the narrow margins and the emboldened dissent among House Republicans. The stakes are high not just for Trump, but for Republicans heading into a contentious midterm season. Failure to extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts would translate into a tax increase for many Americans. Trump's legislation would also boost spending on defense and border security, while reducing spending on Medicaid and food stamps.

CT lawmakers OK $3.2 billion annual bond package of school construction, other projects
CT lawmakers OK $3.2 billion annual bond package of school construction, other projects

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

CT lawmakers OK $3.2 billion annual bond package of school construction, other projects

On the final day of the 2025 regular session, state lawmakers voted Wednesday to fund major construction and renovation projects ranging from colleges to state parks to local schools. The bipartisan bonding package includes $3.2 billion in the first year and $3.4 billion in the second year for projects for more than 30 state agencies, plus public schools across the state. In addition to brick and mortar projects, the legislature decided to allocate bond money to help pay for removing some of the controversial 'public benefits charges' on customers' electric bills. Those costs caused a firestorm of protest starting last July when the increased amounts appeared on electric bills and surprised some customers. Republicans called for switching those costs to the state's general fund, but lawmakers decided to pay for them by borrowing money. The 256-page bond package was approved by the House by 144-4 after less than one hour of debate with four conservative Republicans, Anne Dauphinais of Danielson, Doug Dubitsky of Chaplin, Joe Hoxha of Bristol, and Gale Mastrofrancesco of Wolcott, voting against the measure. The bill was then immediately sent to the Senate, which approved the package before 5:30 p.m. by 35-1. Sen. Rob Sampson, a fiscal conservative from Wolcott, voted against the bill after saying that the state borrows too much money through bonding. The multiple projects range from large to small, for example, including up to $113 million for a new Windham Technical High School to $1 million for renovating a building at Norwalk Community College. Aside from the two-year, $55.8 billion operating budget that is a separate entity, the bond package helps numerous cities and towns, said Senate majority leader Bob Duff of Norwalk. 'This is a crucial piece of the puzzle,' Duff said. 'In this bill, we are under the bond authorization cap in fiscal year 2026 and fiscal year 2027. … At the same time that the federal government is backing out of commitments, we are doubling down. … It is much-needed dollars back to our communities.' Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich, a fiscally conservative Republican, questioned the state's spending on major projects. He said recently on the Senate floor that Gov. Ned Lamont's much-touted 'debt diet' was really like eating a half dozen donuts a day, rather than a full dozen, and feeling like you're still on a diet. Noting that his district is known for sending hundreds of millions of dollars in income taxes annually to the state, Fazio said the package would include money for the historic Old Greenwich School on Sound Beach Avenue and Roxbury Elementary School in the Westover section of Stamford. Traditionally, the bond package often gets approved in the final hours of the session as lawmakers fight to get their special projects into the document. That was the case again Wednesday as both chambers debated on the final day of the regular session. 'The cost of the final version is lower than the committee version,' said Rep. Ron Napoli, a Waterbury Democrat who co-chairs the bonding subcommittee and introduced the bill on the House floor. He added that money set aside in the 'Town Aid Road' category for paving and improving local streets had increased by nearly 33% in a category that he said would make mayors and first selectmen 'very happy.' Rep. John Piscopo, the longest-serving House Republican, noted that the package was crafted on a bipartisan basis. 'The major increases were for energy, getting those public benefits off our bills,' Piscopo said. 'All in all, I could accept this.' Piscopo recalled the early 1990s when an unlikely odd couple of legislators, a blunt, blue-collar Democrat from Enfield and an Ivy League stockbroker from New Canaan, were known for relentlessly traveling around the state and personally looking at leaking roofs and other problems in detailed, on-the-ground inspections. 'We brought back the old tradition of Fred Gelsi and Les Young,' said Piscopo, who has served in the legislature since 1989. 'It means a lot when you can visit the projects and see a day care center that is bursting at the seams … instead of looking at a spreadsheet. We were all over the state. … I'm glad we brought back that Gelsi and Les Young tradition of going out and seeing the projects.' Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat, also mentioned the pair, saying that Gelsi was a 'legendary' lawmaker who knew details down to a particular boiler in a state building. Gelsi died in 2005, long after Young died of cancer in 1996. Looney noted that $550 million will be allocated for school construction, plus $200 million for housing and $10 million in each of the next two years for municipal open space, among others. 'There is a lot to celebrate here,' Looney said. This year, House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford said the number of individual projects was reduced as larger sums of money would be set aside for a broad category of urban projects, for example, that would be named later. 'They've gone away from the line items,' Ritter told reporters. 'You won't see a ton of projects listed.' While lawmakers are highly interested in the bond package, no projects can move forward unless they receive final approval from the 10-member, Democratic-dominated State Bond Commission. Lamont chairs the commission, controls the agenda, and decides which projects get funded. Sen. John Fonfara, a longtime Hartford Democrat, said he wished that legislators had more influence on the final projects that need approval from the bond commission. 'Bonding matters to legislators,' Fonfara said on the Senate floor. 'Parks, recreation, you name it, that are unable to be funded' by local municipalities. The huge, 256-page bill still listed multiple projects, including the maximum amount that could be spent on each one. That includes up to $75 million for the governor's budget office to oversee upgrading computers through an information technology capital investment program, $50 million for designing and planning a replacement for state-owned Whiting Forensic Hospital in Middletown, $40 million for improvements at state parks so that they will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and $15 million for relocating the Department of Motor Vehicles headquarters in Wethersfield, which has been under discussion. 'We are currently looking for a new location in the area that can accommodate our branch and back-office staff with sufficient space,' said state motor vehicles commissioner Tony Guerrera, a well-known former legislator who headed the transportation committee. 'We are collaborating with the Department of Administrative Services to facilitate this process, carefully considering factors such as parking, ADA accessibility and access to public transportation.' The bill also includes up to $40 million for installing solar systems on state properties, $30 million for deferred maintenance at the state's 12 community colleges, $28 million for the UConn Health center in Farmington for equipment, library collections, and telecommunications infrastructure upgrades, $17 million for renovations and improvements at Rentschler Field in East Hartford and the convention center in Hartford, and $30 million for deferred maintenance at the four regional public universities in Danbury, New Britain, New Haven, and Willimantic. Despite plaudits from colleagues about the depth and breadth of the proposals, Sampson said the package was too big. 'Overall, the state of Connecticut bonds too much and probably always has,' Sampson said, adding the bill is 'more giant that it has to be.' But House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford, who voted for the bill, said the package was affordable. 'The bonding is still under the debt cap,' Candelora told reporters outside the Hall of the House. 'So I think the bonding levels have stayed appropriate. But when you continue to give state employees raises, it puts pressure on the pension fund. So now that you're slowing down the amount of money you're going to put into the pensions, we are going to see our unfunded liabilities potentially now increase. They're no longer going to decrease.' The bond bill also included various 'fixes' from multiple pieces of legislation that had already passed, including mistakes and errors that could be corrected before the legislative session's adjournment at midnight Wednesday. 'I know it's a shock to people that we make mistakes in bills that we have to fix, but that's what happens,' Ritter told reporters Wednesday. A key aspect concerns the future of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, which oversees the elections of the state legislators and others. Both the House and the Senate had passed a controversial bill that would have allowed the legislature to approve the commission's executive director. But Lamont had been lobbied on the issue to veto the bill in order to preserve the commission's independence, and his administration requested the change. Groups like the League of Women Voters, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, and Common Cause had opposed the controversial bill, but the measure had moved quickly through both chambers. While the bipartisan measure passed by 34-1 in the state Senate, numerous House Democrats voted against the measure that still passed in the chamber by 92-46. But the resolution is that the legislature will not have veto power over the choice of the executive director. 'There will be a public hearing before the exec noms committee, but not a vote of the exec noms committee,' Ritter said, referring the executive and legislative nominations committee. 'That is something the governor did ask us to look at. That's a big one. He didn't like the appointment by the legislature.' So the tradition will continue in which the five-member, bipartisan commission will still hire its own executive director. 'That provision was a double-edged sword,' Candelora said. 'At the same time, it doesn't need a full vote of the legislature. … That is a provision that impacts democracy. Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store