89th Legislature Regular Session

SB 293

Overall Vote Recommendation
Vote No; Amend
Principle Criteria
Free Enterprise
Property Rights
Personal Responsibility
Limited Government
Individual Liberty
Digest
SB 293 proposes reforms to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC), judicial discipline procedures, compensation, and transparency requirements in Texas. The bill seeks to strengthen oversight of judicial misconduct, increase public awareness of disciplinary actions, and adjust judicial salary and retirement structures. It is part of a broader effort to ensure greater accountability and trust in the judiciary.

A key provision of the bill redefines "official misconduct" to align with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and expands the definition of "willful or persistent conduct inconsistent with judicial duties" to include violations such as failure to meet court deadlines and breaches of state law. SB 293 also eliminates private admonitions, requiring that all disciplinary actions, including public warnings, reprimands, and additional training requirements, be publicly disclosed. This change aims to enhance transparency and deter unethical judicial behavior.

In addition to disciplinary measures, SB 293 introduces modifications to judicial compensation and retirement benefits, tying eligibility to tenure and ethical conduct. Judges found guilty of serious violations may see limitations on their retirement benefits, further incentivizing adherence to judicial standards. The bill also grants the SCJC the authority to impose administrative penalties on judges who fail to comply with disclosure and ethical obligations.

The Committee Substitute for SB 293 introduces several key changes from the originally filed version, primarily aimed at strengthening judicial transparency, refining disciplinary procedures, and adjusting judicial compensation rules. One of the most significant changes is the removal of private reprimands, ensuring that all judicial disciplinary actions are publicly disclosed. Additionally, while both versions redefine “official misconduct,” the substitute bill aligns this definition more closely with Article 3.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, providing a clearer legal standard for violations.

Another major difference is the revision of complaint investigation procedures. The original bill allowed the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) up to 270 days to complete an investigation, while the substitute shortens this extension to 240 days and requires stricter adherence to timely reporting to both judges and the public. Additionally, the substitute removes penalties for individuals who file false complaints, likely to avoid discouraging legitimate grievances.

Regarding judicial compensation and retirement benefits, the original bill provided salary increases for district judges and adjustments for other judicial positions. While the substitute retains these increases, it now ties judicial compensation eligibility to ethical conduct and tenure, ensuring that judges with serious disciplinary violations do not receive the same benefits. The revised bill also scales back the automatic suspension of judges for violations of bail-setting laws, now requiring Supreme Court approval for such suspensions.

Overall, the committee substitute refines the original bill by enhancing transparency, tightening disciplinary procedures, and adding safeguards to judicial pay structures while removing provisions that could deter valid complaints. These adjustments aim to balance judicial accountability with fairness, ensuring that reforms strengthen the integrity of the Texas judiciary without unintended negative consequences.
Author
Joan Huffman
Co-Author
Paul Bettencourt
Charles Perry
Charles Schwertner
Royce West
Fiscal Notes

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.

Vote Recommendation Notes

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.

View Bill Text and Status