Texas Senate Bill SB1436

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 4/6/09
• Voted on by Senate: 4/16/09
• Out of House Committee: 5/22/09
• Voted on by House: 5/27/09
• Governor Action: 6/19/09
• Enrolled: 5/28/09
• Passed: 6/19/09

Caption

Relating to the appeal of a censure issued by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Impact

The introduction of SB1436 is significant for the framework governing judicial conduct in Texas. By establishing a formalized process for appealing censures, the bill promotes transparency in how disciplinary actions against judges are handled. This serves to uphold the integrity of the judiciary while also ensuring that judges have recourse if they believe a censure was undeserved. It marks a shift towards a more structured approach in managing judicial discipline, which some stakeholders believe is crucial for maintaining public trust in the legal system.

Summary

SB1436 seeks to amend laws pertaining to the appeal process for censures issued by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Under this new bill, judges who receive a censure from the commission will have the right to appeal the decision to a specially designated court of review. This court will consist of three justices from the courts of appeal, selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The bill outlines the procedural steps to ensure that the judgment of the commission can be openly reviewed and contested, thereby enhancing judicial accountability.

Contention

While the bill has received support for its focus on judicial accountability, there are concerns regarding the implications of such a structured review process. Critics argue that it could undermine the authority of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and potentially be exploited to shield judges from legitimate disciplinary actions. The pathway for appealing a censure could, according to some opponents, create unnecessary delays in addressing misconduct. Thus, while intended to protect judicial rights, it raises questions about the balance between accountability and judicial independence.