Latest news with #SenateBill293
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas Approves Judicial Pay Bump, Boosting Own Pensions
(Texas Scorecard) – In a dramatic, last-minute deal to end the legislative session, Texas lawmakers approved a measure that will raise judicial salaries—and, in turn, increase their own taxpayer-funded pensions. Passed just before the legislature adjourned Sine Die, Senate Bill 293 sets the starting salary for state district judges at $175,000, up from $140,000. Because legislative pensions are tied to judicial salaries, the vote also raises the maximum annual pension for lawmakers to $175,000. The compromise, however, decouples judicial salaries from future legislative pension increases, a move that had been at the heart of a days-long political dispute. While the legislation tasks the Texas Ethics Commission with reviewing and recommending any changes to legislative pensions every five years, that begins in 2030. In the short term, lawmakers' maximum annual pensions will increase by $35,000. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick had accused House sponsor Jeff Leach (R–Allen) of 'killing' the judicial pay raise after Leach's version of the bill removed automatic pension increases for legislators that are typically triggered by judicial salary hikes. Patrick struck down that provision on a rare point of order, citing germaneness. Leach, meanwhile, defended the House's position, saying lawmakers should raise judicial pay without giving themselves a pension bump—a stance backed by House leadership and many rank-and-file members. The stalemate drew the attention of Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who issued a memo over the weekend calling on both chambers to 'find a short-term solution' to address urgently needed judicial pay increases now and revisit the pension debate next session. He noted Texas ranks 49th in the nation in judicial pay. On Sunday night, both chambers appointed conference committees to come up with a compromise. 'While this proposal may not be perfect, I believe it is a thoughtful compromise that balances the concerns of both chambers while achieving our top agenda—that [of] supporting the integrity of our judiciary and getting something done on this issue this session,' said Leach. The legislation passed the Senate unanimously, while it was approved by the House in a 114-26 vote, shortly before both chambers adjourned for the last time during this regular session.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers reach last-minute deal on pay raises for Texas judges
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.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Down to the wire: Setback for Paxton, no deal on voting bill ahead of final session's day
Sunday was the second to the last day of the 2025 legislative session, and more importantly, the final day to push legislation over the finish line and onto the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott. Much of the action in both chambers focused on measures not identified as priorities of either Abbott or legislative leaders. But a few pieces of significant legislation were debated and a couple of priorities of top state leaders fell by the wayside. Typically, the final day of the legislative session is mostly ceremonial. Legislation that would have granted state district judges their first pay raise in a dozen years has appeared to fall victim to a House-Senate standoff in closing days of the session. But some members of the House and Senate spent Sunday trying to put a deal together in the effort to pass on the final day of the session. It would require suspending several rules, but it could be done. Senate Bill 293 passed the House last week without much controversy after the sponsor, state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, made clear that members would not be voting themselves a backdoor increase to the pensions they earn for extended service in the Legislature. Lawmakers' pensions would still be calculated as if judges' pay remained $140,000 per year, and not at the $175,000 the bill would have paid judges. Under state law, lawmakers are paid only $7,200 a year. However, once they reach eight years of service, they are eligible for state pension that is in line with a salary-linked pension that judges can draw. The more years of service, the more valuable the pension of judges — and lawmakers — is. When SB 293 returned to the Senate, the upper chamber sought to nullify the decoupling of judge-lawmaker pensions without consulting the House. With the legislative session ending Monday, the two chambers would have to agree on SB 293 by midnight Saturday. That deadline came and went with no deal on the bill. Stay tuned. A proposal that would have granted Attorney General Ken Paxton new powers to enforce Texas' election laws died on Sunday after House and Senate lawmakers failed to reach a compromise. The Senate's expansive version of House Bill 5138 would have empowered Paxton to prosecute any election code violation at any time. In contrast, the House version allowed the attorney general to take on election fraud cases only if the local district attorney waited more than six months to prosecute. The legislation was all but certain to face legal challenges if it went into effect. The all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down a similar law in 2021, ruling that the state Constitution forbids the executive branch from taking on the judicial-branch duty of prosecuting crimes. District attorneys are considered to be part of the judicial branch, while the attorney general is not. Legislation that would have required proof of citizenship to register to vote was left languishing as the clock was running out of the session. Though state and federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting, Senate Bill 16 filed by Mineola Republican Sen. Bryan Hughes would have required voters to prove their citizenship to their local voter registrar. The bill sought to create a bifurcated voter registration system and would require applicants and already-registered voters to provide a document like a birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate to be eligible to cast a ballot in state or local elections. If a voter does not provide citizenship documents, they would be able to vote only in federal races. Legislation to broaden the umbrella of the state's medical marijuana program to including chronic pain and Crohn's disease was sent to the governor. If signed into law, House Bill 46 would allow patients eligible for the state's medical marijuana program to use products like cannabis patches, lotions, prescribed inhalers and vaping devices. The list of qualifying conditions would also expand to include chronic pain and terminal or hospice care. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas legislative session ends Monday. Here's what's left to finish
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Destabilizing' Indiana casino relocation study could also recommend new license
Lobbyist Jim Purucker testifies in committee on Tuesday, March 25, 2025. (Leslie Bonilla Muñiz/Indiana Capital Chronicle) Indiana legislation to study relocation of a poor-performing casino's license could also lead to a rare license expansion — and regulators have already gotten started. One witness at a Tuesday hearing called the study itself 'destabilizing' for the industry. 'The way that companies would look at this, is studying it would imply that there's an interest in moving it … or creating another one,' said Jim Purucker, a lobbyist representing Caesars Entertainment and its three Hoosier casinos. He said it's 'very fair' for licensees 'to suggest that there's a move afoot.' Senate Bill 43 previously required the Indiana Gaming Commission to contract out for a study to 'identify the top three regions in the state' for a license relocation. After the committee accepted an amendment by consent Tuesday, that analysis would only take place 'subject to available funding.' It narrowed the study to two regions — but expanded it by striking relocation-specific language. 'I think if you just look at a map of casinos in the state, it's pretty clear the biggest hole in the market is northeast Indiana. … The other thing that has been floated multiple times over the years has been an Indianapolis casino,' Rep. Ethan Manning said. He authored the amendment and chairs the committee. 'I think it leaves us a possibility of studying that. … I'm not even sure there would be an appropriate third region to study,' Manning, R-Logansport, continued. Still, he noted that the legislation doesn't dictate locations, and the contractor would choose. Purucker said the study is 'tremendously destabilizing' for the industry and called it 'another factor' in capital expenditure decisions. 'It's just not how we treat any other industry,' Purucker said. 'We don't talk about, you know, how we want to put other competitors in place with other industries.' Manning, however, said more information is preferable. 'It'd be good to … have professionals do the study rather than just (us) just deciding things without the data,' he told Purucker. Rep. Kyle Miller, D-Fort Wayne, said it's also 'entirely possible' that researchers conclude a 14th license 'isn't valuable to the state.' Senate Bill 43 began as an empty vehicle bill — and was only overhauled after the early death of a measure relocating a struggling casino operating near the Indiana-Kentucky border. Full House Resorts hoped Senate Bill 293 would let it move the Rising Star Casino Resort 150 miles north to New Haven, in northeast Indiana. But a Senate committee's chair killed the proposal after listening to about 20 opponents, who feared gambling addictions and other risks to their community. Rep. Justin Moed, D-Indianapolis, asked Sen. Andy Zay — who authored both bills — whether he'd support the study if its recommendations were to point outside northeast Indiana. 'Yeah. I mean, we're here to represent the whole state, and I think that's the genesis of this conversation,' Zay, R-Huntington, replied. 'We have a way under-performing license that really has brought this conversation on … I think it's incumbent upon us to look at our 13 licenses and mak(e) sure that those are being maximized, wherever that would be.' The committee approved the amended bill on a unanimous, 11-0 vote. Regulators would also now have to present their findings to the State Budget Committee by November, a month later than previously proposed. The Indiana Gaming Commission has already made headway on the draft's mandates. In a request for quotations — with submissions due March 14 — regulators wrote, 'This study is being sought in response to currently pending legislation,' and listed requirements copied from the bill 'as currently written.' The commission re-emphasized the bill's pending nature while answering some of the questions asked by interested, in another document obtained by the Capital Chronicle. 'Greater clarity might be possible once the Bill is finalized,' regulators wrote. Editor Niki Kelly contributed reporting. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Does Indianapolis need a casino? Indy lawmakers advocate for one after past failed attempts
A bipartisan pair of Indianapolis senators advocated for a downtown Indianapolis casino on the Senate floor Tuesday, despite years of pushback to the idea from some industry giants. Senate Bill 43, which the Senate passed by a 33-16 vote on Tuesday, simply requires the Indiana Gaming Commission to study where the top three regions in the state would be to place a casino, but some lawmakers' public support of an Indianapolis-based facility could signal an Indy location is possible in the distant future. Lawmakers have to approve the relocation of gaming licenses and new casinos. The decision to study such a move stems from a discussion lawmakers had to relocate a casino license from Rising Sun, a community along the Ohio River in southern Indiana, north to New Haven near Fort Wayne. Earlier this session the Senate's Committee on Public Policy held a hearing on Senate Bill 293, which would have allowed the move, but the bill died after Lafayette Republican Sen. Ron Alting, the chair of the committee, decided not to call it for a vote. As senators from northeast Indiana debated the bill Tuesday, Indianapolis Sens. Aaron Freeman, a Republican, and Greg Taylor, a Democrat, said they would welcome a "serious discussion" about gaming in Indianapolis. Freeman told IndyStar it's clear that downtown Indianapolis would be the best location for a casino that would boost the state's gaming revenue. The potential dollars from a casino could solve budgetary issues in Marion County and should go toward Indianapolis roads, he said. Members of both political parties and stakeholders like the airport, the convention center and chambers of commerce should come together to consider the opportunity, Freeman said. "I hope everybody can come together and say, 'Indianapolis is a world-class city.' We have world-class events. We have world-class entertainment," Freeman said. "And to support that and to support our conventions and everything else, absolutely we should put a casino in downtown Indianapolis." Subscribe to our politics newsletter Sen. Andy Zay, R-Huntington, carried both SB 43 on studying gambling operations and SB 293 on moving the Rising Sun casino to New Haven. Zay said he recognizes that a casino would add another element to downtown Indianapolis, which already has draws like the convention center, hotels and restaurants. But the city would likely run into the opposition he saw in northeast Indiana, which ranged from moral concerns about expanding gambling to competing gaming interests. 'You're going to have a lot of resistance with the other casino players and how we can balance all that,' Zay told IndyStar. 'How Sen. Freeman, potentially Sen. Taylor, can negotiate through that could be a tremendous challenge. But what would it add to downtown Indianapolis? Could be exciting.' Previous attempts to open a casino in Indianapolis have failed. In 2015, Full House Resorts Inc., which owns Rising Star Casino Resort, proposed building a casino-anchored project on the site of the old Indianapolis International Airport terminal, moving half of its 1,400 allowed gaming gambling table and slot machines to Marion County. That plan died after the Indianapolis Airport Authority rejected that proposal. Similarly, when lawmakers discussed moving a Gary license to a new location in 2018, Matt Bell, president of the Casino Association of Indiana, said he had some members who would "vigorously oppose" the idea of a central Indiana casino. Currently there are 13 casinos scattered across the state, with the closest casinos to Indianapolis located in Anderson and Shelbyville. Senate Bill 43 now goes to the House for consideration. If the bill passes, the study would have to be presented to lawmakers by October. Contact IndyStar government and politics editor Kaitlin Lange at or follow her on X @Kaitlin_Lange. Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Brittany Carloni at Follow her on Twitter/X @CarloniBrittany. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indianapolis lawmakers signal openness to Indianapolis casino
