Proposing a constitutional amendment modifying the initial terms of office for the justices of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals.
Impact
If passed, HJR139 would alter the existing framework for judicial terms in Texas, allowing for staggered terms that are more clearly defined for the justices of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. Proponents believe that such a modification will improve judicial efficiency and oversight, while also ensuring that justices remain accountable during their terms. This amendment is scheduled to be submitted to voters at an election on November 7, 2023, thereby impacting the voting populace's role in determining judicial governance.
Summary
HJR139 proposes a constitutional amendment aimed at modifying the initial terms of office for justices of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Texas. Specifically, the amendment outlines different term lengths for justices, which would be determined based on their position within the court. The chief justice and the justice for Place 3 would serve six-year terms, while justices for Place 2 and Place 4 would serve four years, and the justice for Place 5 would serve a two-year term. This change is designed to enhance the structure and stability of the judiciary by establishing clearer term limits for key judicial positions.
Sentiment
General sentiment around HJR139 appears to be supportive among lawmakers who prioritize judicial reform and accountability. Advocates argue that this bill is a means to refine the judicial system and enhance trust in judicial appointments. However, there could be concerns regarding sudden changes to the terms of justices, creating a divide in opinions about the merits of such reforms. Debate around the amendment may surface key tensions between those favoring structured change and those who caution against altering long-standing judicial practices.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding HJR139 may arise around the length of terms assigned to each justice. Critics could voice concerns about the potential instability introduced by varying term lengths, as justices serving shorter terms may face pressures that influence their decisions. Additionally, there may be discussions about the appropriateness of such amendments to constitutional law and the overall implications for Texas's judicial independence.
Proposing a constitutional amendment for filling vacancies in the offices of justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of criminal appeals, and district judges by appointment.
Proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish the court of criminal appeals and establish one supreme court with civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction.
Proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish the court of criminal appeals and establish one supreme court with civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction.
Proposing a constitutional amendment for filling vacancies in appellate judicial offices by appointment and for nonpartisan retention elections for those offices.