Proposing a constitutional amendment regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the membership of the tribunal to review the commission's recommendations, and the authority of the commission, the tribunal, and the Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.
LowStandard timeline
Low Cost
Effective:2026-01-01
Enforcing Agencies
State Commission on Judicial Conduct • Texas Supreme Court • Review Tribunal (Justices of the Courts of Appeals)
01
Compliance Analysis
Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation
Implementation Timeline
Effective Date: January 1, 2026 (Contingent on voter approval on November 4, 2025).
Compliance Deadline: January 1, 2026. Legal departments must adjust litigation risk assessments and venue vetting protocols by this date.
Agency Rulemaking: The Texas Supreme Court and the reconstituted State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) will likely issue procedural updates between January 1, 2026, and July 1, 2026, to define standards for the new "public-only" sanction regime.
Immediate Action Plan
1.Audit Active Litigation: Identify cases assigned to judges with prior (now public) disciplinary history or pending grievances.
2.Revise MSAs: Shift default dispute resolution clauses from Texas State Courts to Arbitration for contracts renewing after 2025.
3.Update Vetting Protocols: Instruct outside counsel that judicial background checks must include a review of the SCJC public database starting Jan 1, 2026.
4.Monitor the "Pipeline": If you have a pending grievance against a judge, push for resolution before July 1, 2026. On this date, the Commission undergoes a "hard reset" with new appointees, potentially restarting or delaying pending reviews.
Operational Changes Required
Contracts
Dispute Resolution Clauses: Review standard Master Services Agreements (MSAs) and vendor contracts immediately.
Arbitration Strategy: The Fiscal Note predicts increased litigation *by* judges fighting public sanctions, which will congest court dockets. Furthermore, the new suspension power creates venue instability. Strengthen binding arbitration clauses to bypass the state court system during this transition period.
Hiring/Training
Outside Counsel Guidelines: Update engagement letters with outside counsel. Require them to utilize the expanded public disciplinary database for all judge vetting.
Recusal Training: In-house litigation teams must be trained that filing a judicial complaint is no longer a confidential corrective measure; it is a public action that may necessitate a recusal motion.
Reporting & Record-Keeping
Docket Monitoring: Establish a monitoring protocol for judicial indictments. Under the new law, an indictment triggers a mandatory suspension, requiring immediate case reassignment. Your docketing team must flag these events instantly to prevent missed deadlines during case transfers.
Fees & Costs
Litigation Costs: Expect an increase in outside counsel fees. The elimination of private sanctions will lead to more aggressive defense by judges against complaints, slowing down the judicial machinery and extending the lifecycle of your corporate lawsuits.
Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations
The "Binary" Discipline Trap: By removing the option for "private" reprimands, the Commission is left with a binary choice: issue a damaging public sanction or dismiss the complaint entirely. It is currently unclear if the Commission will become more lenient (dismissing minor infractions to save reputations) or more aggressive.
"Willful or Persistent Conduct": The amendment allows removal for conduct "clearly inconsistent with proper performance." This standard is broad. Until the Texas Supreme Court clarifies this threshold via case law, the line between an "appealable error" and "sanctionable misconduct" remains blurred.
Need Help Understanding Implementation?
Our government affairs experts can walk you through this bill's specific impact on your operations.
Information presented is for general knowledge only and is provided without warranty, express or implied. Consult qualified government affairs professionals and legal counsel before making compliance decisions.
S.J.R. 27, if approved by the Texas voters, would amend Article V, Section 1-a, of our state Constitution to adjust the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Additionally, the joint resolution adjusts the authority of the commission and Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges for judicial misconduct.
As proposed, S.J.R. 27 proposes a constitutional amendment regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the authority of the commission and the Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
This bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency.
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS
SECTION 1. Amends Section 1-a, Article V, Texas Constitution, by amending Subdivisions (2), (3), and (8) and adding Subdivisions (2-a) and (2-b), as follows:
(2) Provides that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) consists of the following 13 members:
(i) two individuals who serve as a Justice or Judge, of the Court of Criminal Appeals, a Court of Appeals, a District Court, a County Court at Law, or a Constitutional County Court and are appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas (supreme court) with advice and consent of the Senate;
(ii) two members of the State Bar, appointed by the Board of Directors of the State Bar under rules prescribed by the Supreme Court with advice and consent of the Senate, who have each respectively practiced as such for over 10 consecutive years next preceding their selection, rather than one district judge;
(iii) seven, rather than five, citizens appointed by the Governor with advice and consent of the Senate, who are each at least 30 years of age, are not licensed to practice law, and do not hold a salaried public office of employment; and
(iv) two individuals who serve as a Justice of the Peace or a Judge of a Municipal Court appointed by the supreme court with the advice and consent of the Senate, rather than one justice of the peace and one judge of a municipal court.
Makes nonsubstantive changes to this subdivision.
Deletes existing text including one Judge of a County Court at Law and one Judge of a Constitutional County Court among the members of SCJC.� Deletes existing text prohibiting certain Commissioners from being in the same court of appeals district as another member of SCJC.
(2-a) Creates this subdivision from existing text. Prohibits a person from being appointed or remaining a member of SCJC who does not maintain physical residence within this State or who has ceased to retain the qualifications above specified for that person's appointment. Makes nonsubstantive changes.
(2-b) Creates this subdivision from existing text. Prohibits a person appointed under Subsection (2)(i) of this Section from being a judge or justice in the same type of court as another member of SCJC. Makes conforming and nonsubstantive changes.
(3) Authorizes Commissioners to succeed themselves in office only if the commissioner has, rather than having, served less than three consecutive years. Deletes existing text requiring certain initial members of SCJC to be chosen for terms of four and six years, and certain initial members for terms of two, four, and six years. Makes nonsubstantive changes.
(8) Authorizes SCJC, after such investigation as it deems necessary, to in its discretion issue a public, rather than a private or public, admonition, warning, reprimand, or requirement that the person obtain additional training or education. Deletes existing text requiring SCJC,� after a formal hearing, or after considering the record and report of� a Master, to recommend to a review tribunal the removal or retirement, as the case may be, of the person and to thereupon file with the tribunal the entire record before SCJC.
(6) Requires, rather than authorizes, any person holding an office specified in this subsection to be suspended from office with or without pay by SCJC immediately on being indicted by a State or Federal grand jury for a felony offense or charged with a misdemeanor involving official misconduct. Provides that, on the filing of a sworn complaint charging a person holding such office with willful or persistent violation of rules promulgated by the supreme court, incompetence in performing the duties of the office, willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or willful and persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of the person's duties or casts public discredit on the judiciary or on the administration of justice, SCJC, after giving the person notice and an opportunity to appear and be heard before SCJC, is required to� recommend to the supreme court the suspension of such person from office with or without pay, rather than recommend to the supreme court the suspension of such person from office.
SECTION 3. Adds the following temporary provision to the Texas Constitution:
TEMPORARY PROVISION. (a) Provides that this temporary provision applies to the constitutional amendment proposed by the 89th Legislature, Regular Session, 2025, regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the authority of the commission and the Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct. Provides that the constitutional amendment takes effect January 1, 2026.
(b) Requires the commissioners of SCJC serving on the date the amendment described by Subsection (a) of this section is approved by the voters as shown by the official canvass of returns, unless otherwise removed as provided by law, to continue in officer as the members of SCJC under the former law that governed the composition of SCJC, and provides that the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. Requires new commissioners of the SCJC to be chosen as vacancies occur.
(c) Provides that this temporary provision expires January 1, 2031.
SECTION 4. Requires that the proposed constitutional amendment be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 4, 2025. Sets forth the required language of the ballot.
Honorable Bryan Hughes, Chair, Senate Committee on State Affairs
FROM:
Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
SJR27 by Huffman (Proposing a constitutional amendment regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the authority of the commission and the Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.), As Introduced
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for SJR27, As Introduced: a negative impact of ($878,845) through the biennium ending August 31, 2027.
The resolution would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the resolution.
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five- Year Impact:
Fiscal Year
Probable Net Positive/(Negative) Impact to General Revenue Related Funds
2026
($535,267)
2027
($343,578)
2028
($343,578)
2029
($343,578)
2030
($343,578)
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
Fiscal Year
Probable (Cost) from General Revenue Fund 1
Change in Number of State Employees from FY 2025
2026
($535,267)
2.0
2027
($343,578)
2.0
2028
($343,578)
2.0
2029
($343,578)
2.0
2030
($343,578)
2.0
Fiscal Analysis
The resolution would propose an amendment to Article V of the Texas Constitution to alter the composition of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) membership, to adjust the term of office for commissioners, and to restrict certain disciplinary mechanisms for the Commission.
Methodology
According to SCJC, the provisions of the resolution that remove private sanction as a disciplinary option would increase the amount of litigation the agency would have to undertake.
Based on information provided by SCJC, this analysis assumes the agency would require $343,578 each fiscal year and 2.0 FTE positions to handle the increased litigation the agency anticipates. This includes $240,000 in salaries for the two staff attorneys, $20,770 in costs associated with the additional staff and $11,000 in court reporter fees each fiscal year. Benefit and payroll contribution costs would total $71,808 each fiscal year.
The cost to the state for publication of the resolution is $191,689.
The proposed amendment would be submitted to voters at an election to be held November 4, 2025.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.
Source Agencies: b > td >
212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 242 State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 300 Trusteed Programs Within the Office of the Governor
LBB Staff: b > td >
JMc, WP, DA, NTh
Related Legislation
Explore more bills from this author and on related topics
SJR27 proposes a constitutional amendment that eliminates confidential "private" sanctions for Texas judges and authorizes the immediate suspension of judges upon indictment for felonies or official misconduct. While this law targets the judiciary, it creates significant downstream volatility for corporate litigation dockets; if approved by voters in November 2025, businesses must anticipate increased judicial turnover and slower case resolution beginning January 2026. Implementation Timeline Effective Date: January 1, 2026 (Contingent on voter approval on November 4, 2025).
Q
Who authored SJR27?
SJR27 was authored by Texas Senator Joan Huffman during the Regular Session.
Q
When was SJR27 signed into law?
SJR27 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 2, 2025.
Q
Which agencies enforce SJR27?
SJR27 is enforced by State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Texas Supreme Court and Review Tribunal (Justices of the Courts of Appeals).
Q
How urgent is compliance with SJR27?
The compliance urgency for SJR27 is rated as "low". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.
Q
What is the cost impact of SJR27?
The cost impact of SJR27 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.
Q
What topics does SJR27 address?
SJR27 addresses topics including courts, courts--judges, governor, resolutions and resolutions--constitutional amendments.
Legislative data provided by LegiScanLast updated: November 25, 2025
Need Strategic Guidance on This Bill?
Need help with Government Relations, Lobbying, or compliance? JD Key Consulting has the expertise you're looking for.