Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Texas Proposition 4, Changes to Eligibility for Certain Judicial Offices Amendment (2021)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Texas Proposition 4
Flag of Texas.png
Election date
November 2, 2021
Topic
State judiciary
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment
Origin
State legislature

2021 measures
November 2
Texas Proposition 1 Approved
Texas Proposition 2 Approved
Texas Proposition 3 Approved
Texas Proposition 4 Approved
Texas Proposition 5 Approved
Texas Proposition 6 Approved
Texas Proposition 7 Approved
Texas Proposition 8 Approved
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

Texas Proposition 4, the Changes to Eligibility for Certain Judicial Offices Amendment, was on the ballot in Texas as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 2, 2021. It was approved.[1]

A "yes" vote supported making the following changes to eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge:

  • requires candidates to be residents of Texas as well as citizens of the United States;
  • requires 10 years of experience in Texas as a practicing lawyer or judge of a state or county court for candidates of the supreme court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, or a court of appeals;
  • requires eight years of experience in Texas as a practicing lawyer or judge of a state or county court for candidates of a district court;
  • disqualifies candidates if their license to practice law was revoked or suspended during experience requirement; and
  • applies these requirements to individuals elected or appointed to a term beginning after January 1, 2025.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment to make changes to the eligibility requirements for candidates running for the following judicial offices: a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.


Election results

Texas Proposition 4

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

845,030 58.78%
No 592,585 41.22%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Overview

How did Proposition 4 change eligibility requirements for certain judicial offices?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 4 changed the eligibility requirement for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals from 10 years of experience as a lawyer or judge to 10 years licensed in Texas as a lawyer or judge on a state or county court. The amendment also changed the eligibility for a judge of a district court from four years of experience as a practicing lawyer or judge to eight years.[2]

The amendment also specified that in addition to being a citizen of the United States candidates must also be residents of Texas. The amendment took effect in January 2022 for candidates first elected for a term that begins on or after January 1, 2025.[2]

How did the amendment get on the ballot?

See also: Path to the ballot

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required in both the Texas State Senate and the Texas House of Representatives. This amendment was filed as Senate Joint Resolution 47 (SJR 47) on March 8, 2021. On April 27, 2021, the state Senate passed SJR 47 in a vote of 30-1. On May 18, 2021, the House approved SJR 47 by a vote of 120-19 with 11 not present or not voting.[1]

How often do amendments pass in Texas?

See also: Historical facts

Between 1995 and 2019, voters approved 91% (154 of 169) and rejected 9% (15 of 169) of the constitutional amendments that appeared on statewide ballots in Texas. An average of 13 measures appeared on odd-year statewide ballots. The number of ballot measures on odd-year statewide ballots ranged from 7 to 22.

Measure design

This measure amended the Texas Constitution to change the eligibility requirements for the following judicial offices: a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.[2]

Changes to qualifications for justices or judges of the Texas Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, and Court of Appeals

Under the amendment, a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Texas at the time of election. At the time of the election, the state constitution required an individual to be a citizen of the United States and Texas. The amendment also required the candidate to either have been a practicing lawyer licensed in the state of Texas for at least 10 years or a judge of a state court or county court for at least 10 years. During this period of 10 years, the amendment required that a candidate has not had their license revoked, suspended, or subject to a probated suspension. At the time of the election, the state constitution required that a justice or judge has been either a practicing lawyer or a lawyer and judge of a court of record together for at least 10 years.[2]

Changes to qualifications for judges of a Texas District Court

For district judges, a qualified candidate has to be a citizen of the United States, a resident of Texas, and a practicing lawyer or a judge of a court in Texas, or both combined, for eight years. At the time of the election, the state constitution required an individual to be a citizen of the United States and Texas and requires four years of combined experience. The amendment required that candidates have not had their license revoked, suspended, or been subject to a probated suspension.[2]

The amendment took effect in January 2022 for candidates first elected for a term that begins on or after January 1, 2025, which means it would not apply to justices or judges whose first term began before that date.[2]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[2]

The constitutional amendment changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.[3]

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 5, Texas Constitution

The measure amended sections 2 and 7 of Article 5 of the state constitution. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:[2] Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Text of Section 2:

Supreme Court; Justices; Sections; Eligibility; Election; Vacancies

(b) No person shall be eligible to serve in the office of Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court unless the person:

(1.) is licensed to practice law in the State of Texas;
(2.)this state and is, at the time of election, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Texas;this state, and
(3.)has attained the age of thirty-five years;
(4.) , and has been either:
(A.)a practicing lawyer licensed in the State of Texas for at least ten years;, or
(B.)a practicing lawyer in the State of Texasand judge of a state court or county court established by the Legislature by statute for a combined total of court of record together at least ten years; and
(5.) during the time required by Subdivision (4) of this subsection has not had the person ’s license to practice law revoked, suspended, or subject to a probated suspension.

Text of Section 7:

Judicial Districts; District Judges; Terms or Sessions; Absence, Disability, or Disqualification of Judge

(a.)The State shall be divided into judicial districts, with each district having one or more Judges as may be provided by law or by this Constitution.

(b.)Each district judge shall be elected by the qualified voters at a General Election. To be eligible for appointment or election as a district judge, a person must:

(1) and shall be a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State;
(2), who is be licensed to practice law in this State;
(3) have and has been a practicing lawyer or a Judge of a Court in this State, or both combined, for eight four (4) years next preceding the judge's his election, during which time the judge ’s license to practice law has not been revoked, suspended, or subject to a probated suspension;
(4) have who has resided in the district in which the judge he was elected for two (2) years next preceding the his election;, and
(5) who shall reside in the his district during the judge's his term of office.

(c)A district judge shall and hold the his office for the term period of four (4) years, and who shall receive for the judge's his services an annual salary to be fixed by the Legislature.

(d)A District The Court shall conduct its proceedings at the county seat of the county in which the case is pending, except as otherwise provided by law. The CourtHe shall hold the regular terms of his Court at the County Seat of each County in the Court ’s his district in such manner as may be prescribed by law. The Legislature shall have power by General or Special Laws to make such provisions concerning the terms or sessions of each District Court as it may deem necessary.

(e)The Legislature shall also provide for the holding of District Court when the Judge thereof is absent, or is from any cause disabled or disqualified from presiding.

TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) This temporary provision applies to the constitutional amendment proposed by the 87th Legislature, Regular Session, 2021, changing the eligibility requirements for a justice of the supreme court, a judge of the court of criminal appeals, a justice of a court of appeals, and a district judge.

(b) The amendment to Section 2(b), Article V, of this constitution takes effect January 1, 2022, and applies only to a chief justice or other justice of the supreme court, a presiding judge or other judge of the court of criminal appeals, or a chief justice or other justice of a court of appeals who is first elected for a term that begins on or after January 1, 2025, or who is appointed on or after that date.

(c) The amendment to Section 7, Article V, of this constitution takes effect January 1, 2022, and applies only to a district judge who is first elected for a term that begins on or after January 1, 2025, or who is appointed on or after that date. [3]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2021
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 17, and the FRE is 32. The word count for the ballot title is 33, and the estimated reading time is 8 seconds.


Support

Supporters

Officials

Organizations

  • Common Cause Texas
  • Texans for Lawsuit Reform
  • Texas Fair Courts Network

Arguments

  • David Beck, a partner in Beck Redden in Houston and chairman of Texas Commission on Judicial Selection: "The longer attorneys practice law, obviously, the more experience they have. The more life experience and legal experience you have, it gives you a better insight into the matters that might come before you. When you have somebody who has been practicing a minimum of four years, and is 25 years of age, I just don’t think they have had a lot of the life experiences that are useful to a judge in making decisions."
  • State Senator Joan Huffman: "Members over the interim, I served on the Judicial Selection Commission along with Senators Birdwell, Hinojosa, and Nichols. ... The commission members did not reach a consensus about a method of selection or a consensus on changing it, but we did all agree that judicial qualifications should be increased."


Opposition

If you are aware of any opponents or opposing arguments, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opponents

Officials

Organizations

  • Progress Texas

Arguments

  • Progress Texas: Proposition 4 "would make it harder for younger, more diverse candidates to become judges in Texas by strengthening requirements. This is a Republican reaction to more Democratic or progressive lawyers beating GOP candidates in recent years in urban counties."


Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Texas ballot measures

If you are aware of a committee registered to support or oppose this amendment, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Media editorials

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on Proposition 4.

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

  • The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board: "Recommendation: Yes. The proper function of our courts relies on knowledgeable judges with deep legal experience. The current requirements are insufficient to ensure that our judges have that experience. Attorneys commonly complain that they are before courts where judges lack a strong enough understanding of the law."
  • Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "The prongs of Prop 4 are prudent and worthy of voters’ support. But they merely tinker with a judicial selection process that, for decades, has cried out for overhaul. ... Requiring more experience of judicial candidates, while nice, is not the solution to that problem. Passing Prop 4 is fine, but lawmakers need to focus on more fundamental reforms to ensure judges are picked for their qualifications, not their party affiliation."
  • The Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "It’s admirable to try to ensure only qualified judges get elected. But the real problem is that we elect judges at all. Our recommendation: Yes."
  • The San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "For: Put simply, Proposition 4 raises the bar for judicial candidates."
  • El Paso Times Editorial Board: "Unable to agree on any substantive reforms, however, the Texas Commission on Judicial Selection gave us a piece of low-hanging fruit for the Nov. 2 ballot: Proposition 4, which requires more years of Texas legal experience from judicial candidates, and blocks candidates who have been disciplined by the Texas Bar in recent years."

Opposition

  • The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Proposition 4: AGAINST. When people in power are unhappy with the choices made by voters, they do stuff like this, which would make it substantially harder for younger, more diverse, and dare we say more progressive lawyers to become judges in Texas. The need for more stringent qualifications wasn't evident to the state's GOP elites (which include many wack jobs who were nonetheless elevated to judicial benches) until they started losing court elections en masse to Democratic slates in the urban counties. Now it's a crisis. You get the picture."


Background

Courts in Texas

In Texas, there are four federal district courts, a state supreme court, a state court of appeals, and trial courts with both general and limited jurisdiction. Selection of state court judges in Texas occurs through partisan elections at each court level. Term lengths vary, but all judges must run for re-election at the ends of their terms. Across the state's appellate and trial courts, there are nine supreme court justices, nine criminal appeals judges, 80 appeals court judges, and 448 district court judges.[4]

The image below depicts the flow of cases through Texas' state court system. Cases typically originate in the trial courts and can be appealed to courts higher up in the system.

The structure of Texas' state court system.

Texas Supreme Court

See also: Texas Supreme Court

Founded in 1836, the Texas Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort for civil matters and has nine judgeships. The nine justices are elected to staggered six-year terms in statewide partisan elections. Justices must be older than 35 years of age and retire from the court at 74. The court has mandatory jurisdiction over writs of mandamus and habeas corpus. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction to answer questions of state law certified from a federal appellate court; has original jurisdiction to issue writs and to conduct proceedings for the involuntary retirement or removal of judges; and reviews cases involving attorney discipline upon appeal from the Board of Disciplinary Appeals of the State Bar of Texas."[5]

Texas Courts of Appeals

See also: Texas Courts of Appeals

The Texas Courts of Appeals are a set of 14 appellate courts in the Texas judicial system with intermediate jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases that are appealed from the lower district or county courts. The number of judges serving on each court is defined by statute and varies from three to 13. At a minimum, "each Court is presided over by a chief justice and has at least two other justices." There are currently 80 judges authorized by statute for the 14 Courts of Appeals. Most cases are only heard by three justices; cases only require the full slate of justices in extreme circumstances.[6]

Judges serve six-year terms and are elected through partisan elections. Vacancies between elections are filled by the governor, with advice and confirmation by the Senate. Judges must be older than 35 years of age and retire from the court at 74.[6]

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

See also: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Founded in 1876, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the state's court of last resort for criminal matters and has nine judgeships. This means the court may choose whether or not to review a case. The only cases that the court must hear are those that involve sentencing decisions in capital punishment cases and other cases involving liberty issues, such capital punishment cases, cases where bail has been denied and habeas cases where a prisoner or person being detained attempts to prove some constitutional right has been violated as a result of their detention.

The court is composed of a presiding judge and eight judges. Each judge serves a six-year term. They are elected in staggered partisan elections. Judges must be older than 35 years of age and retire from the court at 74.[7]

Texas District Courts

See also: Texas District Courts

Texas District Courts are the trial courts of general jurisdiction in Texas. As of January 2020, there were 477 district courts in Texas. District courts have one judge per court. District judges in Texas are selected via the partisan election method and serve four-year terms. Judges must be older than 25 years of age and retire from the court at 74.

Referred amendments on the ballot

See also: List of Texas ballot measures

The following statistics are based on ballot measures between 1995 and 2020 in Texas:

  • Ballots featured 169 constitutional amendments.
  • An average of 13 measures appeared on odd-year statewide ballots.
  • The number of ballot measures on odd-year statewide ballots ranged from 7 to 22.
  • Voters approved 91% (154 of 169) and rejected 9% (15 of 169) of the constitutional amendments.
Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1995-2020
Total number Approved Percent approved Defeated Percent defeated Odd-year average Odd-year median Odd-year minimum Odd-year maximum
169 154 91.1% 15 8.9% 12.8 11 7 22


During the 2021 regular and first special legislative sessions, 251 constitutional amendments were filed in the Texas State Legislature. In the regular session, legislators filed 218 amendments, and in the first special session, legislators filed 33 amendments. Between 2009 and 2020, an average of 192 constitutional amendments were filed during regular legislative sessions. The state legislature approved an average of nine constitutional amendments during regular legislative sessions. Therefore, the average rate of certification during regular legislative sessions was 4.7%. In 2021, eight of the 218 proposed constitutional amendments were certified for the ballot during the regular session, meaning the rate of certification was 3.7%, down from 4.6% in 2019.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Texas Constitution

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required in both the Texas State Senate and the Texas House of Representatives.

This amendment was filed as Senate Joint Resolution 47 (SJR 47) on March 8, 2021. On April 27, 2021, the state Senate passed SJR 47 in a vote of 30-1. On May 18, 2021, the House approved SJR 47 by a vote of 120-19 with 11 not present or not voting.[1]

Vote in the Texas State Senate
April 27, 2021
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 21  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total3010
Total percent96.8%3.2%0.0%
Democrat1210
Republican1800

Vote in the Texas House of Representatives
May 18, 2021
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 100  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total1201911
Total percent80.00%12.67%7.33%
Democrat49144
Republican7157

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Texas

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Texas.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Texas State Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 47 Overview," accessed April 28, 2021
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Texas State Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 47 Text," accessed April 28, 2021
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  4. American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Texas," archived October 3, 2014
  5. Texas Office of Court Administration, "FY 2010 Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary," December 2010
  6. 6.0 6.1 Texas Judicial Branch, "Courts of Appeals," accessed October 20, 2015
  7. Texas Judicial Branch, "ABOUT THE COURT," accessed September 25, 2019
  8. VoteTexas.gov, "Who, What, Where, When, How," accessed February 27, 2023
  9. Texas Secretary of State, “Request for Voter Registration Applications,” accessed February 27, 2023
  10. Texas Secretary of State, “Voter Registration,” accessed February 27, 2023
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 NCSL, "State Profiles: Elections," accessed July 28, 2024
  12. Texas Secretary of State, "Request for Voter Registration Applications," accessed July 28, 2024
  13. Texas Constitution and Statutes, “Election Code,” accessed February 23, 2023
  14. The Texas Tribune, “Texas officials flag tens of thousands of voters for citizenship checks,” January 25, 2019
  15. The New York Times, “Federal Judge Halts ‘Ham-Handed’ Texas Voter Purge,” February 28, 2019
  16. The New York Times, “Texas Ends Review That Questioned Citizenship of Almost 100,000 Voters,” April 26, 2019
  17. Texas Secretary of State, “Secretary Whitley Announces Settlement In Litigation On Voter Registration List Maintenance Activity,” April 26, 2019
  18. Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Texas Secretary of State, "Required Identification for Voting in Person," accessed February 27, 2023 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "tvid" defined multiple times with different content