Stage Seven: How Fair are Texas Judges Being Judged?

In a recent Austin American Statesman article titled, “Texas judges' misdeeds often kept secret by oversight commission,” the writer has brought attention to the biased and secretive disciplinary action received by some Texas judges whose cases have been heard by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC). This state agency was created by the Texas legislature to oversee approximately 3900 judges who are investigated for judicial misconduct and to take appropriate action to punish a judge’s alleged misconduct. Of the approximately 1200 complaints heard yearly by SCJC, arguments against the agency are that very few judges are disciplined, most of the reprimands are kept private, and punishment varies when similar cases are presented to the agency. With an unpaid staff of six judges, two attorneys, and five citizens, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct is a small agency managing a large caseload which acts as a quasi-court for judges’ misconduct. The agency strives to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and promote public confidence in the conduct of judges.

Justifying their duties, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct states many of the cases are dismissed because they have no merit, there is insufficient evidence, or they are unrelated to the agency's oversight. Additionally, other factors cited include a shortage of staff, working long hours investigating the caseloads, and having a limited travel budget to properly interview witnesses, which are problematic issues for thoroughly assessing an investigation and reaching an appropriate reprimand or punishment.

While the article states that most reprimands are kept private in accordance with the Texas Constitution to prohibit public retaliation, advocates say these are necessary protections to guard judges. However, there must be equal division between the public’s knowledge on which judges have received sanctions and a voter’s right to make an informed decision whether or not to elect that judge again. In my opinion, the Public Information Act, which makes all government information available to the public with certain exceptions, should be extended to include the State Commission on Judicial Conduct since it is a governmental body enacted by the Texas Legislature. Additionally, the Sunset Advisory Commission is mandated by the legislature to determine if SCJC is performing its intended function. After a recent audit of proposed recommendations to SCJC in March of this year, this agency will now allow Sunset Advisory Commission to sit in the judicial misconduct hearings to fully evaluate whether it is performing their duties impartially.

Due to the private rules held by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, there have been numerous instances of unfairly sanctioning judges with similar offenses. The decision to reprimand or punish judges has been largely applied on a case-by-case basis which varies because the thirteen-member commission changes commissioners every six years and this may account for some of their inconsistent judgments. This agency seems to be loosely regulated and has unique protection by the Texas Constitution which created its existence, yet it is unable to be restrained by the legislature to be fully accountable in its decision-making process.