HB2715

Regular Session

Relating to the removal from office of certain officers of political subdivisions.

LowStandard timeline

Low Cost

Effective:2025-06-20

Enforcing Agencies

Presiding Judge of the Administrative Judicial Region • District Clerks • Appointed Special Prosecutors (from outside the judicial district)

Compliance Analysis

Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation

Implementation Timeline

Effective Date: June 20, 2025
Compliance Deadline: Immediate. Any petition for removal filed on or after June 20, 2025, must comply with the new venue and appointment procedures.
Agency Rulemaking: None. This is a self-executing amendment to the Local Government Code; no further agency guidance will be issued.

Immediate Action Plan

Halt Pending Filings: If you are preparing a petition for removal, stop immediately. Re-draft the filing to address the Presiding Judge of the Administrative Judicial Region, not the local district judge.
Audit Evidence: Review any internal dossiers regarding local official misconduct. Ensure every allegation is supported by specific dates, times, and locations to survive a motion to dismiss.
Update Litigation Strategy: Advise executive leadership that removing a hostile local official is now a more objective, but procedurally heavier, legal option.
Monitor Insurance: If your entity indemnifies public officials (e.g., in public-private partnerships), review policies for defense cost provisions, as these cases will no longer be quickly resolved locally.

Operational Changes Required

Contracts

Vendor Agreements: No immediate amendments required for standard commercial contracts.
Legal Retainers: If your organization retains outside counsel for administrative law or government relations, ensure their engagement scope accounts for the increased complexity and potential travel costs associated with litigating before out-of-district officials.

Hiring/Training

Legal Team Training: In-house counsel and compliance officers must be briefed that the "home court" venue for removing local officials no longer exists.
No Certification Required: No new staff certifications are mandated.

Reporting & Record-Keeping

Petition Filing: Petitions for removal must still be filed with the District Clerk, but they trigger an immediate mandatory report to the Presiding Judge of the Administrative Judicial Region (AJR) rather than the local district judge.
Evidence Logs: The law reinforces the requirement to plead specific acts of misconduct. Businesses documenting official corruption for potential legal action must maintain a rigorous log citing the exact time, place, and nature of each incident. Generalized complaints will likely face dismissal under the stricter scrutiny of an outside judge.

Fees & Costs

Litigation Costs: While filing fees remain statutory, anticipate higher legal costs for removal proceedings. The involvement of a special prosecutor and a visiting judge will likely extend the duration of proceedings and increase procedural formalities.

Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations

Prosecutorial Selection: The law mandates the AJR Presiding Judge "shall appoint" a prosecutor from another district but provides no criteria for this selection. Businesses cannot predict the aggressive or conservative nature of the state's representation until the appointment is made.
"Plain and Intelligible" Standard: The statute requires charges be set forth in "plain and intelligible language." Because these cases will now be heard by judges with no local political ties, we anticipate a stricter, more technical application of pleading standards than was previously common in local courts.

Need Help Understanding Implementation?

Our government affairs experts can walk you through this bill's specific impact on your operations.

Schedule Consultation

Information presented is for general knowledge only and is provided without warranty, express or implied. Consult qualified government affairs professionals and legal counsel before making compliance decisions.

Legislative Timeline

This bill's path through the Texas Legislature

TopicsCourts Courts--civil Procedure Courts--judges Courts--juries Courts--prosecuting Attorneys Governor Legislature State Officers Attorney General Political Subdivisions

Official Analysis

View HRO Analysis View All Bill Documents

BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 2715

By: Curry

State Affairs

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The bill author has informed the committee that there is a need for government accountability and public officials' adherence to their duties and that standardizing the judicial process for removing local officials who fail to uphold their duties would enhance government accountability. C.S.H.B. 2715 seeks to preserve local judicial oversight while standardizing the judicial process for removing local officials by requiring all petitions for the removal of applicable county officials to be addressed to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region in which a petition for removal is filed and by repealing certain outdated requirements concerning the removal of such an officer.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 2715 repeals statutory provisions that do the following relating to the removal of certain county officers from office by petition and trial:

·in a proceeding for the removal of an officer and except as otherwise provided by law, require the county attorney to represent the state;

·in a proceeding to remove a county attorney who is not a prosecuting attorney from office, require the district attorney to represent the state; and

·if the county does not have a district attorney, require the county attorney from an adjoining county, as selected by the commissioners court of the county in which the proceeding is pending, to represent the state.

C.S.H.B. 2715 amends the Local Government Code to remove the requirement that a petition for removal of a county officer from office other than a prosecuting attorney be addressed to the district judge of the court in which it is filed. The bill replaces the requirement that a petition for removal of a prosecuting attorney from office be addressed to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region in which the petition is filed with a requirement that a petition for removal of a county officer from office under statutory provisions relating to the removal of such officers by petition and trial be addressed to such a presiding judge.

C.S.H.B. 2715 repeals Sections 87.018(d) and (e), Local Government Code.

C.S.H.B. 2715 applies only to the removal of an officer under statutory provisions relating to the removal of county officers from office by petition and trial for which the petition for removal is filed under those provisions on or after the bill's effective date. The removal of an officer for which the petition for removal is filed before the bill's effective date is governed by the law in effect on the date the petition is filed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

EFFECTIVE DATE

On passage, or, if the bill does not receive the necessary vote, September 1, 2025.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 2715 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

The substitute omits the following provisions that appeared in the introduced:

·a provision providing for the bill's applicability;

·a requirement for an officer of the state or a political subdivision of the state to follow and execute the laws of the state in accordance with the officer's oath of office;

·an authorization for the governor to suspend an officer of the state or a political subdivision for a violation of that requirement;

·a requirement for the governor to file a petition for removal of such a suspended officer;

·a provision establishing the date such a suspension takes effect and the temporary nature of the suspension;

·a requirement for the governor to make a provisional appointment to temporarily fill a vacancy if the governor suspends an officer;

·a provision establishing that a suspended officer may only be removed following a jury trial and provisions setting out the manner in which the trial must be conducted and requirements applicable based on the outcome of the trial; and

·a provision making the bill applicable only to conduct of an officer of the state or a political subdivision of the state that occurs on or after the bill's effective date.

The substitute includes the following provisions absent from the introduced:

·provisions repealing the statutory provisions requiring a county attorney or district attorney, as applicable, to represent the state in a proceeding for the removal of certain county officers;

·a provision removing the requirement that a petition for removal of an officer other than a prosecuting attorney be addressed to the district judge of the court in which it is filed;

·a provision replacing the requirement that a petition for removal of a prosecuting attorney be addressed to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region in which the petition is filed with a requirement that a petition for removal of a county officer be addressed to such a presiding judge; and

·provisions making the bill applicable only to the removal of an applicable officer for which the petition for removal is filed on or after the bill's effective date and establishing that the removal of an officer for which the petition for removal is filed before the bill's effective date is governed by the law in effect on the date the petition is filed and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

House Authors

Rep. Pat CurryRepublican · Primary Author

Joint Authors

David Cook (R)

Senate Sponsors

Sen. Mayes MiddletonRepublican · Primary Sponsor

Cosponsors (1)

Lois Kolkhorst (R)

Bill Text(with markup)

H.B. No. 2715

View bill text in multiple formats on Texas Legislature website

Fiscal NoteView Original

	AN ACT
	relating to the removal from office of certain officers of
	political subdivisions.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1. Section 87.015(c), Local Government Code, is
	amended to read as follows:
	(c) A petition for removal of an officer under this
	subchapter [~~other than a prosecuting attorney must be addressed to~~
	~~the district judge of the court in which it is filed. A petition for~~
	~~removal of a prosecuting attorney~~] must be addressed to the
	presiding judge of the administrative judicial region in which the
	petition is filed. The petition must set forth the grounds alleged
	for the removal of the officer in plain and intelligible language
	and must cite the time and place of the occurrence of each act
	alleged as a ground for removal with as much certainty as the nature
	of the case permits.
	SECTION 2. Section 87.0151, Local Government Code, is
	amended to read as follows:
	Sec. 87.0151. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGE [~~IN CERTAIN CASES~~]. (a)
	Immediately after a petition for removal of an officer under this
	subchapter [~~a prosecuting attorney~~] is filed under Section 87.015,
	the district clerk shall deliver a copy of the petition to the
	presiding judge of the administrative judicial region in which the
	court sits.
	(b) On receiving a petition for removal [~~of a prosecuting~~
	~~attorney~~] under Subsection (a), the presiding judge of the
	administrative judicial region shall assign a district court judge
	of a judicial district that does not include the county in which the
	petition was filed to conduct the removal proceedings.
	SECTION 3. Section 87.018(f), Local Government Code, is
	amended to read as follows:
	(f) In a proceeding to remove an officer under this
	subchapter [~~a prosecuting attorney from office~~], the presiding
	judge of the administrative judicial region in which the petition
	for removal was filed shall appoint a prosecuting attorney from
	another judicial district or county, as applicable, in the
	administrative judicial region to represent the state.
	SECTION 4. Sections 87.018(d) and (e), Local Government
	Code, are repealed.
	SECTION 5. The changes in law made by this Act apply only to
	the removal of an officer under Subchapter B, Chapter 87, Local
	Government Code, for which the petition for removal is filed under
	that subchapter on or after the effective date of this Act. The
	removal of an officer for which the petition for removal is filed
	before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in
	effect on the date the petition is filed, and the former law is
	continued in effect for that purpose.
	SECTION 6. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
	a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
	provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
	Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
	Act takes effect September 1, 2025.

LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas

FISCAL NOTE, 89TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION


April 8, 2025

TO:	Honorable Ken King, Chair, House Committee on State Affairs

FROM:	Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board

IN RE:	HB2715 by Curry (Relating to the suspension and removal from office of certain elected officials of this state or a political subdivision of this state.), As Introduced

No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.

It is assumed that any costs associated with the bill could be absorbed using existing resources.

Local Government Impact

No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.

Source Agencies:

300 Trusteed Programs Within the Office of the Governor, 302 Office of the Attorney General

LBB Staff:

JMc, WP, KCu

Related Legislation

Explore more bills from this author and on related topics

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about HB2715

What does Texas HB2715 do?

HB 2715 immediately strips local jurisdiction over the removal of elected officials, mandating that such proceedings be handled by a judge and special prosecutor from outside the judicial district. This change fundamentally alters the litigation landscape for businesses engaged in disputes involving allegations of misconduct, incompetence, or intoxication against local political officers. Implementation Timeline Effective Date: June 20, 2025 Compliance Deadline: Immediate.

Who authored HB2715?

HB2715 was authored by Texas Representative Pat Curry during the Regular Session.

When was HB2715 signed into law?

HB2715 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 20, 2025.

Which agencies enforce HB2715?

HB2715 is enforced by Presiding Judge of the Administrative Judicial Region, District Clerks and Appointed Special Prosecutors (from outside the judicial district).

How urgent is compliance with HB2715?

The compliance urgency for HB2715 is rated as "low". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.

What is the cost impact of HB2715?

The cost impact of HB2715 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.

What topics does HB2715 address?

HB2715 addresses topics including courts, courts--civil procedure, courts--judges, courts--juries and courts--prosecuting attorneys.

Legislative data provided by LegiScanLast updated: November 25, 2025

Need Strategic Guidance on This Bill?

Need help with Government Relations, Lobbying, or compliance? JD Key Consulting has the expertise you're looking for.