According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SJR 27 is expected to result in a negative fiscal impact of $878,845 to General Revenue-related funds over the biennium ending August 31, 2027. This cost stems from structural and operational changes to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) that would increase its workload, particularly due to a projected rise in litigation. This increase is largely attributed to the resolution’s removal of private sanctions as a disciplinary tool, which would push more cases into formal proceedings.

To manage this increased caseload, the SCJC anticipates the need to hire two additional staff attorneys, resulting in recurring personnel costs of $343,578 per year beginning in FY 2027. These costs include approximately $240,000 in salaries, $71,808 in benefits, $11,000 in court reporting expenses, and other associated operational costs. These positions are expected to be permanent to accommodate the long-term procedural changes resulting from the resolution.

Additionally, the resolution will incur a one-time publication cost of $191,689 for placing the constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot in November 2025. No significant fiscal impact is expected for local governments. While the resolution does not appropriate funds, it would authorize legislative appropriations to cover these implementation expenses.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SJR 27 while also strongly suggesting they consider amendments as described below. The proposed constitutional amendment represents a meaningful step forward in improving the structure and accountability of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC). Most notably, the resolution expands the Commission’s membership from 11 to 13 and increases the number of public (non-lawyer, non-officeholding) members from five to seven. This structural reform directly addresses longstanding concerns about insularity and lack of public accountability within the SCJC, making it more representative of the citizens it serves.

However, the resolution also grants the SCJC expanded authority to issue public sanctions without requiring formal hearings and mandates suspension of judges under certain criminal indictments—both of which raise due process concerns. While these powers may help expedite discipline in clear-cut cases of judicial misconduct, they must be carefully balanced to prevent overreach or politically motivated actions. Without clear procedural protections, these provisions could erode judicial independence and undermine the very integrity the reform seeks to strengthen.

Given the benefits of increased public oversight and updated governance, the resolution deserves support in principle. Yet, to fully align with core liberty values—especially individual liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility—it must be amended to incorporate explicit procedural safeguards, transparent processes, and appeal mechanisms. With those amendments in place, the reform would not only be more just but also more resilient.

• Individual Liberty: The bill advances individual liberty by promoting a more transparent and accountable judiciary. Increasing the number of public members on the SCJC introduces citizen oversight into a process that has traditionally been opaque and closed to scrutiny. However, the resolution allows the SCJC to issue public sanctions without a formal hearing, raising concerns about due process protections for judges. While judges are public officials and should be held accountable, denying them the opportunity for a fair hearing before a public reprimand could set a precedent that weakens civil liberties more broadly. Amending the resolution to require procedural safeguards would bring it into stronger alignment with individual liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the idea that judges must be held personally accountable for their behavior while in office. By authorizing public disciplinary measures and strengthening enforcement powers, the bill ensures that judicial misconduct is more likely to have real consequences. It removes barriers that previously may have protected judges from meaningful scrutiny, thus upholding the principle that public officials should be subject to the same ethical expectations as the citizens they serve.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill does not directly impact economic freedom or business regulation, the judiciary plays a crucial role in enforcing contracts, resolving disputes, and protecting property rights. A fair, trusted judiciary contributes to a stable legal environment, which supports a healthy business climate. Strengthening accountability may indirectly improve public trust in legal processes that affect businesses—but the bill does not introduce new burdens or freedoms in the enterprise space.
• Private Property Rights: Judicial integrity is foundational to the protection of property rights. Courts interpret and enforce property law, resolve disputes over land, contracts, and ownership, and safeguard due process in civil proceedings. A better-functioning, more publicly accountable judiciary is more likely to uphold property rights fairly and consistently. By ensuring that judges who abuse their authority can be publicly disciplined or removed, the bill strengthens public confidence in these protections.
• Limited Government: The bill introduces important limits on government insularity by increasing public oversight of a powerful state body. Adding more citizen voices to the SCJC and clarifying membership qualifications promote transparency and decentralize judicial oversight. However, the expanded power to publicly sanction judges without hearings and automatic suspension upon indictment potentially expand government authority in ways that could be misused. These provisions risk undermining judicial independence if left unchecked. Amending the resolution to define procedural limits and ensure accountability for the SCJC itself would better uphold the principle of limited government.

• SB 293 (Enabled by)