Texas Attorney General Opinion: DM-428 Page: 1 of 4
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Office of the Attornep generall
6tate of Texas
DAN MORALES
ATTORNEY GENERAL December 19, 1996
The Honorable Galen Ray Sumrow Opinion No. DM-428
Criminal District Attorney
Rockwall County Courthouse Re: Whether a person may simultaneously
Rockwall, Texas 75087 serve as a municipal judge in more than one
jurisdiction (RQ 873)
Dear Mr. Sumrow-
You have requested our opinion as to whether a person may simultaneously serve
as a municipal judge in more than one jurisdiction. Article XVI, section 40, of the Texas
Constitution provides, in relevant part:
No person shall hold or exercise at the same time more, than one
civil office of emolument, except that of Justice of the Peace, County
Commissioner, Notary Public and Postmaster... It is further
provided that a nonelective State officer may hold other nonelective
offices under the State or the United States, if the other office is of
benefit to the State of Texas or is required by the State or Federal
law, and there is no conflict with the original office for which he
receives salary or compensation.
We first consider whether the position of municipal judge is an "office."' In
Purcell v. Carrillo, the court, without elaboration, held that "the office of City Judge of
Alice... is a civil office of emolument." Purcell v. Carrillo, 349 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Civ.
App.-San Antonio 1961, no writ). Likewise, in Attorney General Opinion JM-333, this
office said that a municipal judge occupies a civil office of emolument. Attorney General
Opinion JM-333 (1985) at 2. Since, however, neither the case nor the opinion offer a
compelling analysis for this conclusion, and because of the serious difficulty facing small
cities in attempting to procure the services of part-time municipal judges, we feel that it is
appropriate to consider the matter anew.
'We assume your question relates only to municipal judges who receive compensation. If a
municipal judge is paid for his services in one jurisdiction, but not in the other, he does not occupy more
than one office "of emolument" and thus, article XVI, section 40, does not bar him from dual service.
See Irwin v. State, 177 S.W.2d 970, 973 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944).
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: DM-428, text, December 19, 1996; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth274237/m1/1/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.