The fiscal implications of SB 293 indicate a net positive impact of approximately $100.8 million on General Revenue Funds through the biennium ending August 31, 2027. The bill primarily affects judicial salaries, transparency initiatives, and disciplinary measures, with notable financial consequences for state expenditures on judicial compensation and retirement benefits. While the bill increases certain costs associated with judicial oversight and administrative reforms, these are offset by expected efficiencies and adjustments in salary structures.

One of the most significant fiscal components of the bill is the increase in judicial salaries, raising the base salary of district judges from $140,000 to $161,000. This change triggers proportional increases for appellate justices, business court judges, prosecutors, and other judicial officials whose salaries are statutorily linked to district judges. These salary adjustments result in an estimated $25.7 million annual cost to the General Revenue Fund, covering additional payments for various judicial positions. The Employees Retirement System (ERS) projects a one-time cost of $24.83 million for the Judicial Retirement System (JRS II) in the fiscal year 2026 due to pension adjustments stemming from these salary increases. Additionally, the ongoing retirement contribution costs are projected at $4.2 million annually for JRS II and $358,900 for ERS.

Beyond salary increases, the bill introduces new administrative costs tied to transparency and disciplinary measures. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) is expected to require $3.2 million in the fiscal year 2026 and $656,488 in the fiscal year 2027 to support new personnel, office expansion, and a case management system upgrade. Similarly, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) will need $254,006 in the fiscal year 2026 and $88,206 in the fiscal year 2027 to develop a judicial transparency reporting system. These investments aim to enhance public accountability and oversight of judicial conduct.

The bill also allows SCJC to impose administrative penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 for knowingly filing false complaints against judges. While this provision has the potential to generate additional state revenue, the fiscal note acknowledges that the number of such penalties is uncertain, making revenue projections difficult. Despite these unknowns, the overall budgetary impact remains positive, as the bill’s measures are expected to improve judicial efficiency and transparency, ultimately leading to long-term cost savings.

From a broader fiscal perspective, the bill’s increased expenditures are counterbalanced by the projected efficiencies and accountability mechanisms it introduces. The long-term financial benefits of improved judicial discipline and transparency may help mitigate immediate cost increases. Importantly, the fiscal note concludes that the bill is not expected to have significant financial implications for local governments, as most of the changes apply at the state level. Ultimately, SB 293 represents a substantial investment in judicial oversight and accountability, with the potential to enhance the integrity of Texas’s judiciary while maintaining a favorable fiscal outlook for the state.

While SB 293 makes important improvements in judicial transparency and accountability, it contains a major flaw that necessitates a NO vote unless amended. The bill increases the base salary of district judges from $140,000 to $161,000, which, due to Texas's statutory structure, automatically increases legislative pensions. Since state lawmakers' retirement benefits are tied to district judge salaries, this bill would directly result in higher pensions for legislators, creating a conflict of interest. Without an amendment to decouple legislative pensions from judicial salary increases, SB 293 would lead to higher taxpayer-funded retirement benefits for lawmakers without requiring any additional public approval or accountability.

This unintended consequence is especially problematic because the bill does not address or acknowledge this automatic pension increase, meaning legislators voting in favor of the bill would be directly increasing their own retirement benefits. Such a financial impact should not be enacted without explicit debate and safeguards to ensure it is in the best interest of taxpayers.

While the bill rightly strengthens judicial discipline by making all reprimands public and streamlining the complaint process, the legislative pension increase must be addressed before passage. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 293 unless an amendment is adopted disconnecting the pension of lawmakers from that of the judicial salary increases.

• HB 1761 (Same As)
• HB 2064 (Similar To)