Texas House Bill HJR148

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment providing for appointments to fill vacancies for certain judicial offices and for nonpartisan retention elections for those offices.

Impact

If enacted, HJR148 could significantly reshape Texas's judicial landscape by lowering the frequency of contested elections for justices and streamlining the process through which judicial vacancies are filled. Proponents argue this will enhance the quality of appointments by focusing on qualifications rather than electoral campaigning. The proposed changes stand to minimize partisan influence in judicial elections, which supporters assert is vital for maintaining an impartial judiciary. However, there is concerns over the concentration of power in the Governor's hands that appointments may cause, raising questions about the potential for politicization of the judiciary.

Summary

HJR148 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to modify the process for filling vacancies in certain judicial offices within Texas. The amendment stipulates that judicial positions such as justices on the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals will be filled through appointments, specifically by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. This change replaces the existing election process, positioning the Governor's office as central in judicial appointments and removals. Furthermore, justices will now face nonpartisan retention elections, allowing voters to decide whether to keep or remove them from office during specified election cycles.

Contention

The resolution has sparked debate among lawmakers, particularly regarding the merits of shifting power from elections to gubernatorial appointments in judicial matters. Opponents argue that the removal of public elections for judicial positions could diminish accountability and transparency. Critics fear that such a system may lead to favoritism and a lack of representation of the public's interests, as appointed officials may feel less compelled to adhere to the desires of their constituents. Furthermore, there are apprehensions concerning the potential erasure of checks and balances inherent in the current system where judges are accountable to voters.