Texas Expands Discipline Options for its Commission on Judicial Performance

Center for Judicial Performance and Integrity, Judicial Campaigns, Elections, and Selection, Judicial Performance Commission

TxFlagYesterday was an off-year election and few state and local ballot measures generated much national interest. However, there was an interesting judicial ballot initiative: Proposition 9 in Texas to amended the state constitution to expand the actions available to the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct following a formal investigation into judicial misconduct.

Proposition 9 passed with an 85% yes vote.

The Proposition amends Section 1-a(8) of Article V of the Texas Constitution which governs the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Prior to the amendment, the Texas Commission was permitted to issue a private or public admonition, warning, reprimand to a judge or require he or she seek additional training or education, after an informal private investigation which warranted the action. However, if formal and public proceedings investigating misconduct were necessary, the Texas Commission was limited to wholly punitive sanctions such as removal or retirement.

Those who supported Proposition 9 argued that the severity of all sanctions available after formal proceedings discouraged the use of open and public hearings into judicial misbehavior. No “apparent opposition” (excerpt of report) to the measure was reported by the Texas Legislative Council (full report) and the Texas League of Women Voters noted only that some felt stronger measures are necessary “to reinforce the SCJC’s authority to discipline judges and hold them accountable for judicial misconduct.”

The Texas Commission remains empowered to convene a reviewing tribunal and recommend removal or retirement in accordance with other provisions in the law, but it is now permitted the lesser penalties of private or public admonitions, as well as mandated training or education in the context of a formal public hearing into questions of judicial misconduct.

Public accountability is critical for maintaining the public’s respect of judicial authority. Fairness of court processes, more than  perceived fairness of individual case outcomes, have a significant impact on how the public perceives the integrity of the courts. This extends to both judicial qualifications and job performance, including disciplinary procedures. The public wants its judicial officers to be held accountable for their job performance, in terms of competence, impartiality, efficiency and integrity. A demonstrable commitment to transparency and accountability by the court and its administration improves its relationship to the community it serves.

The Texas judiciary now has expanded options for its own oversight, which the public clearly supports because the Amendment removed barriers to public investigation into an individual judge’s conduct. We hope the Texas judiciary uses its new discretion not only to censure judges where necessary but also assist them in improving their professional skills and judicial temperament.