Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey

Texas Proposition 5, State Commission on Judicial Conduct Authority Over Candidates for Judicial Office Amendment (2021)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Texas Proposition 5
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 5, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct Authority Over Candidates for Judicial Office 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 adding a section to the state constitution that authorizes the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to investigate and discipline candidates seeking state judicial office in the same manner as judicial officeholders.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment, thereby maintaining that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct is authorized to investigate and discipline only judicial officeholders and not judicial candidates.


Election results

Texas Proposition 5

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

852,336 59.23%
No 586,686 40.77%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Overview

How did Proposition 5 change the Commission's authority?

See also: Text of measure

Proposition 5 authorized the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct to accept complaints regarding the conduct of candidates seeking judicial office and discipline candidates in the same manner the commission was authorized to do so with judicial officeholders. At the time of the election, the Texas Constitution authorized the commission to discipline sitting judges through letters of caution, private sanctions, public sanctions, resignation instead of discipline, suspensions, public admonition, public warning, or public reprimand.[2]

What is the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct?

See also: Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct

The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct is a judicial disciplinary agency in Texas. It was established by the approval of Proposition 8 in 1965 as the State Judicial Qualifications Commission. In 1977, voters changed the name of the Commission to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with the approval of Proposition 7. The commission is made up of 13 members. In 2020, the Commission had jurisdiction over 4,151 judges according to Office of Court Administration records.[3]

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.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[2]

The constitutional amendment providing additional powers to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with respect to candidates for judicial office.[4]

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 5, Texas Constitution

The measure added subsection (13-a) to section 1-a of Article 5 of the state constitution. The following underlined text was added:[2]

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Text of Section 1(a):

Retirement, Censure, Removal, and Compensation of Justices and Judges; State Commission on Judicial Conduct; Procedure

(13-a) The Commission may accept complaints or reports, conduct investigations, and take any other action authorized by this section with respect to a candidate for an office named in Subsection (6)(A) of this section, in the same manner, the Commission is authorized to take those actions with respect to a person holding that office. [4]

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 18, and the FRE is 5. The word count for the ballot title is 20, and the estimated reading time is 5 seconds.


Support

Supporters

Officials

Organizations

  • Texas Freedom Caucus

Arguments

  • Representative Jacey Jetton (R), the author of the amendment: "There is an inherent unfairness in judicial elections when a candidate runs for judicial office against an incumbent because judges are subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct, but candidates are not. H.J.R. 165 would ensure that judicial elections are fair by granting the State Commission on Judicial Conduct the authority to enforce the same standards for judicial candidates that they do for sitting judges."
  • State Senator Judith Zaffirini (R): "[Proposition 5] is an important step toward improving the quality of our judiciary by authorizing SCJC to hold judicial candidates to the same standards of ethical campaign practices as incumbent judges. The section on political activities of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges seeking re-election and candidates for judicial office from telling voters how they would rule on a certain kind of case, endorsing other candidates or knowingly misrepresenting the views or qualifications of their opponents. Because SCJC has jurisdiction only over incumbent judges, however, it is unclear who has the authority to reprimand judicial candidates. The result, unfortunately, is to give this group free rein without holding them accountable."


Opposition

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

Opponents

Organizations

  • Progress Texas

Arguments

  • Progress Texas: Proposition 5 "gives the State Commission on Judicial Conduct authority over judicial candidates. In theory, this could be useful reform, but in practice, it would give those in power more control over judicial elections, which they are already attempting to game (see Prop 4)."


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 5.

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. This amendment would expand the authority of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to receive complaints, investigate and sanction candidates for state judicial offices. Currently, the Texas Constitution limits the commission’s authority to current holders of judicial office. This change would hold challengers and incumbents to the same standards and help preserve the impartiality and integrity of the courts."
  • Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board: "Prop 5 would bring uniformity to a system designed to keep judicial campaigns honest. We recommend voters support it. ... Public confidence in the judiciary grows from the perception that judges are honest, unbiased actors. Having judicial campaign standards — and applying them evenly — helps ensure that a campaign does not undermine the integrity of the courts. Prop 5 provides that level playing field by ensuring the same entity handles all judicial campaign complaints. Texas voters should support this common-sense reform."
  • The Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board: "This would give the State Commission on Judicial Conduct power to investigate complaints against candidates for office, not just sitting judges. It would make for even-handed treatment, though it could have unintended consequences, including a flood of complaints that the commission is not adequately staffed to handle. Our recommendation: Yes."
  • The San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board: "Proposition 5 expands the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s power to accept and investigate complaints, and takes actions concerning, alleged misconduct by judicial candidates. Currently, the commission accepts and investigates complaints against judges in office. We recommend voters cast a ballot FOR Proposition 5."
  • El Paso Times Editorial Board: "Prop 5 would bring uniformity to a system designed to keep judicial campaigns honest. We recommend voters support it."

Opposition

  • The Austin Chronicle Editorial Board: "Proposition 5: AGAINST. This is another attempt to game judicial elections. In the abstract, it would be good if the state's legal institutions, such as the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, had a more useful and visible role to play in helping local voters decide these very low-information races. In practice, this is a recipe for chaos and mischief designed to give rival campaigns a chance to go negative without real consequence, much the same way that complaints to the Texas Ethics Commission are filed now. We can live without it."


Background

Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct

See also: Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct

The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct is a judicial disciplinary agency in Texas. It was established by the approval of Proposition 8 in 1965. The commission is made up of 13 members: six judges, two lawyers, and five members of the public. The judges are appointed by the state supreme court, the lawyers are appointed by the State Bar of Texas, and the members of the public are appointed by the governor.[3]

In 2020, the Commission had jurisdiction over 4,151 judges according to Office of Court Administration records. Out of the 1,240 complaints received by the Commission in 2020, the Commission closed 763 after initial review, closed 334 after a preliminary investigation, and pursued a full investigation for 144 cases. Complaints were most often filed by litigants (494), criminal defendants (279), or citizens (190).[5]

In the Commission's 2020 annual report, they included the following examples of judicial misconduct:[5]

  • failure to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation
  • inappropriate or demeaning courtroom conduct, including yelling, use of profanity, demonstrated gender bias or the use of racial slurs
  • improper ex parte communications with only one side in a case
  • a public comment regarding a pending case
  • presiding over a case in which the judge has an interest in the outcome, or in which any of the parties, attorneys, or appointees are related to the judge within a prohibited degree of kinship
  • out of court activities, including criminal conduct, engaging in improper financial or business dealings, improper fundraising activities, sexual harassment, or official oppression[4]

Ballot measures regarding the Commission

Ballotpedia tracked the following ballot measures related to the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct:

  • Approveda Proposition 9 (2013): The measure expanded the types of sanctions that could be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding instituted by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
  • Approveda Proposition 6 (2005): The measure increased the size of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct from eleven to thirteen members by increasing from four to five the number of public members and by adding a constitutional county court judge.
  • Approveda Proposition 7 (1984): The measure expanded the types of conduct that could be the basis for complaints to the commission on judicial conduct. The measure also expanded the types of sanctions assessed by the commission.
  • Approveda Proposition 7 (1977): The measure changed the name of the State Judicial Qualifications Commission to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and revised the commission's powers, proceedings, and membership.
  • Approveda Proposition 1 (1970): The measure expanded the scope of the State Judicial Qualifications Commission's disciplinary authority to all judges and justices and expanded the types of sanctions that could be assessed by the commission.
  • Approveda Proposition 8 (1965): The measure established a State Judicial Qualifications Commission, which provided procedures for removing or involuntarily retiring a judge based on misconduct or disability.

Judicial selection in Texas

See also: Judicial selection in Texas

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.[6]

Texas is one of 21 states that have nonpartisan or partisan judicial elections. There are also 17 states with judicial retention elections at some or all levels of state courts and three states with partisan judicial elections followed by retention elections.

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.

The judges are elected to the following terms, respectively, after which they must seek re-election if they wish to retain their seat:

Supreme Court Court of Criminal Appeals Court of Appeals District Courts County Courts Justice of the Peace Courts
Partisan elections Partisan elections Partisan elections Partisan elections Partisan elections Partisan elections
Six-year term Six-year term Six-year term Four-year term Four-year term Four-year term


Under Section 601.003 of the Texas Government Code, judges' terms begin on January 1 after their election or re-election.[7]

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 House Joint Resolution 165 (HJR 165) on April 27, 2021. On May 13, 2021, the state House passed HJR 165 in a vote of 137-0 with 13 not present or not voting. On May 22, 2021, the Senate approved HJR 165 by a vote of 31-0.[1]

Vote in the Texas House of Representatives
May 13, 2021
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 100  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total137013
Total percent91.33%0.00%8.67%
Democrat5809
Republican7904

Vote in the Texas State Senate
May 22, 2021
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 21  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total3100
Total percent100.0%0.0%0.0%
Democrat1300
Republican1800

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 Texas State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 165 Overview," accessed April 28, 2021
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Texas State Legislature, "House Resolution 165 Text," accessed May 24, 2021
  3. 3.0 3.1 State Commission on Judicial Conduct, "Commissioner Information"
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 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 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  5. 5.0 5.1 State Commission on Judicial Conduct, "Annual Report," accessed May 26, 2021
  6. American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Texas," archived October 3, 2014
  7. Texas Government Code, "Section 601.003," accessed June 24, 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