Texas Senate Bill SJR45

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/11/11
• Refer: 3/22/11

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment for filling vacancies in appellate judicial offices by appointment, for partisan elections for all judicial offices, and for subsequent nonpartisan retention elections for all judicial offices.

Impact

If enacted, SJR45 would amend the Texas Constitution to allow the Governor to appoint judges to fill vacancies at the appellate level, thereby impacting the current framework of how judicial vacancies are filled. This can lead to a more expedient process of filling such positions and maintain judicial continuity. The amendment would change the electoral landscape for judges, shifting from potentially non-partisan special elections to a clear partisan ballot followed by retention elections, thereby altering how judges are both selected and retained in office.

Summary

SJR45 proposes a constitutional amendment concerning the procedures for filling vacancies in appellate judicial offices in Texas. It introduces a process where such vacancies can be filled by appointment and specifies that all judicial offices will undergo partisan elections followed by nonpartisan retention elections. The bill aims to streamline the judicial election process, ensuring that qualified jurists are appointed to vacant positions until the next general elections, when they would stand for partisan election followed by retention voting by the public.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SJR45 appears to be mixed. Supporters argue that the bill ensures that only qualified candidates occupy judicial positions and enhances the accountability of judges through the retention election process. Conversely, critics express concerns about the implications of having such positions filled through appointments, fearing that this could weaken public influence on the judiciary and potentially lead to political patronage in judicial appointments.

Contention

There are notable points of contention regarding SJR45, particularly revolving around the transparency and fairness of the proposed election process. Critics highlight that switching to partisan elections could politicize the judiciary more than it currently is, raising questions about judicial independence. Furthermore, the balance of power between the legislature and the executive branch concerning judicial appointments may be an area of concern, as some stakeholders advocate for preserving a more democratic approach to retaining judicial positions.