QMfice of tQe !ZIttornep @enera 

Sbtatt of atxas 

March 27,199l 

Honorable John Whitmire 

Senate Committee on 

Opinion No. DM-11 

Intergovernmental Relations Re: Authority of a commissioners court to set the 

Texas State Senate salary of a county court-at-law judge and to suppleP. 0. Box 12068 ment the salary of a district judge, and related quesAustin, Texas 78711 tions (RQ-4) 

Dear Senator Whitmire: 

The Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Relations asked the following 

question. 

Is there a ‘constitutional conflict of interest’ in the 

commissioners court’s ability to set the salary of a county court 

at law judge and in setting a supplement to the salary of a district judge when the judges receiving the sakuy and the stipplement are then asked to rule on cases which directly affect the 

commissioners court? 

Chapter 25 of the Government Code provides generally for county 

courts-at-law, also referred to therein as “statutory county courts.” Section 25.0005 

provides as follows with respect to the salaries of judges of such courts: 

(a) Subject to any salary requirements otherwise imposed 

by this chapter for a particular court or county, the commissioners court sets the salary of each statutory county court judge. 

(b) The salary shall be paid in equal monthly installments. 

Other provisions in chapter 25 applicable to specific statutory county courts 

make exceptions to the requirement of section 250005(b) that the salaries of statutory county court judges are to be paid in equal monthly installments. See, e.g., id. 

5 250302(h) (subsection (b) of section 25.0005 does not apply to a county 

court-at-law in Caldwell County). However, the provision of subsection (a) of section 25.0005, that the commissioners court sets the salary of such judges, appears to 

apply generally to all Texas counties. 

p. 51 
Honorable John Whitmire - Page 2 (DM- 11) 

Chapter 32 of the Government Code provides for additional or supplemental 

salary to be set, within specified limits, by enumerated commissioners courts for certain district judges serving those counties. See, e.g., id 8 32.002 (Andrews County 

Commissioners Court to pay judge of the 109th Judicial District additional annual 

salary not to exceed $5000). 

The request letter does not cite any particular constitutional provisions as 

apposite. The only constitutional provision we find that might arguably apply to the 

issue you present is that in article V, section 11, that “[n]o judge shall sit in any case 

wherein he may be interested.” 

The term “interest” in article V, section 11, as interpreted by the courts, has 

a “special and limited meaning; it refers only ro direct pecuniary interests.” 1 

G. BRADEN, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEFW: AN ANNOTATED 

AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS at 423 (1977). A pecuniary interest suffkient to 

disqualify a judge under article V, section 11, must also be real and certain. Any 

pecuniary gain or loss to the judge must be an immediate, necessary, and 

quantifiable result of the judgment to be rendered in the particular case, and not 

merely a possible or incidental result. See bve v. Wilca 28 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. 

1930) (justice, who was himself a candidate in primary, not disqualified to consider 

mandamus proceeding by another candidate to have his name printed on primary 

ballot); Nueces Coun&&&aPe & Conservb Dist. No. 2 v. Bevly, 519 S.W.2d 

938 (Tex. Civ. App.--Corpus Christi 1975, writ refd n.r.e.) (judge’s interest as 

taxpayer in drainage district too remote to disqualify him from hearing action to 

enjoin district from making certain improvements); Narro Ware~house.c. v. K& 

530 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Civ. App.--Corpus Christi 1975, writ refd n.r.e.) (judge no; 

disqualified to sit in condemnation case by reason of having accepted free legal 

services of attorney in another case in federal court in which both judge and litigants 

in condemnation proceeding were parties). 

In our opinion, the Government Code provisions authorizing commissioners 

courts to set salaries for county court-at-law judges and salary supplements for district judges do not create a “constitutional conflict of interest.” The possibility that 

the judge’s actions might be influenced by the fact that the commissioners court sets 

his salary or supplement is too remote and uncertain to be an “interest” within the 

meaning of the article V, section 11, prohibition. 

P. 54 
Honorable John Whitmire - Page 3 (DM- 11) 

SUMMARY 

The statutory provisions for county commissioners courts’ 

setting the salaries of county court-at-law judges and the salary 

supplements of district court judges do not create a “constitutional conflict of interest. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY (Ret) 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RENEA HICKS 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

SUSAN GARRISON 

Acting Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by William Walker 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 53