As Texans participate in early voting, they are evaluating a measure that supporters hope will ensure judges are held accountable.

Proposition 12 is an amendment to the Texas Constitution, aiming to increase transparency and accountability for judges across the state. The proposition is on the November 4 ballot, and early voting started on October 20.

“Until this point, there was no way to do anything about the corruption,” said Jennifer Lundy, executive director of Texans for Judicial Accountability, to The Dallas Express. “You could complain, you could complain, you could complain – and nothing was happening. So our prayer is that when we have legitimate complaints, that something will happen.”

If the amendment passes, it would change the composition of the 13-member State Commission on Judicial Conduct to include two more citizens, Lundy said.

According to Ballotpedia, it would also restrict private reprimands – requiring the commission to name judges accused of criminal conduct, and strengthen the commission’s ability to punish judges for misconduct.

 

The SCJC currently includes six judges, two attorneys, and five public members, according to Lundy. Proposition 12 would replace the attorneys with two more public citizens, appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott.

“That gives everyday Texans a majority control,” Lundy explained. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DALLAS EXPRESS APP

Jesse Hoffman, a Dallas lawyer and a former assistant attorney general, told The Houston Chronicle he thinks the amendment would give Abbott control over the commission, allowing him to appoint the majority of members.

“If any judge disrupts the governor, or anybody who the governor is willing to take marching orders from, he would now have a powerful tool to get that judge back in line or get him or her out of the way entirely,” Hoffman reportedly said. 

The Dallas Morning News editorial board opposed the measure, echoing similar concerns.

Lundy disagreed, saying the reforms are not a partisan issue.

“That’s not even true. Abbott was over the five public citizens that were on it to start out with, so he’s only added two,” she said. “It doesn’t give them the authority to just go in and put Republican people … It’s not political.”

Lundy pointed to Senate Joint Resolution 27, which laid the groundwork for the proposition. It passed with bipartisan support – in the state House by 119 to 17, with four abstaining and 10 absent, and in the state Senate by 27 to 4. 

“That should tell you, it’s both,” she said. “It goes all the way across.”

The proposition would also restrict private reprimands from the SCJC, requiring the commission to name judges accused of criminal conduct, according to Ballotpedia. If misconduct is “willful or persistent,” it would also require public sanctions or referrals for removal or suspension.

Over the last 20 years, the commission has seen around 27,000 complaints, according to Lundy. She said this led to around 250 public sanctions and around 550 private sanctions. 

“These private reprimands were horrible. Not all of them were, but many of them were horrible,” Lundy said. “You had no idea who they were referring to.”

The commission has issued seven private sanctions so far this year. The most recent instance occurred on August 14, when an unnamed district court judge commented on a respondent’s social media post, suggesting the outcome of the case.

Earlier this year, an unnamed county judge “lent the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of a political candidate in the 2024 election,” according to the commission. In January, another unnamed associate judge “failed to treat litigants and attorneys with patience, dignity, and courtesy,” showed potential bias, and “denied a litigant’s attorney the right to be heard.”

Texas is no stranger to judicial misconduct.

A Democrat judge in Dallas faced two public sanctions in June for a pattern of violating defendants’ constitutional rights. In May, a Northeast Texas judge was accused of using a death threat to coerce a plea deal.

Senate Bill 293 and SJR 27 helped lay the groundwork for reining in private reprimands so the commission would identify the judges in question, according to Lundy. She hoped this would help “expose the misconduct to public scrutiny and deter corruption.”

The legislation also raised judicial pay 25%, which Lundy said was long overdue.

The proposition would also allow the commission to suspend judges from office, with or without pay, immediately after a state or federal jury indicts them for a felony or misdemeanor involving official misconduct. After review, the commission could also ban the judge from holding judicial office in the future.

Texans for Judicial Accountability already has a list of reforms for the next session, according to Lundy. She said the group hopes to restore public trust by opening courtrooms to audio and video, and to require judges in lawsuits to disclose political donations.

“Judges are taking donations while they have a suit going on, and they’re not having to disclose it to the other party that they accepted the donation,” Lundy said. “All we’re asking is for transparency if a judge accepts a donation and they have a case going with the person, the other party needs to know that they accepted it.”

“Most of our judges are honest, very amazing people, but there are some that are not. And there are some that are ruling in favor of the people giving them the donation,” she added.

Lundy said the group has a “laundry list” of other items for the next session, like making the director of judicial conduct an elected position and making the complaint process more accessible. 

She encouraged others to get involved.

“I am just a person. I did have background because I was a court reporter and I worked for two of our senators, so I knew people, but I’m just a person,” Lundy said. “Anyone can do it if you’ve got the desire.”