The foundational explainer for the series” who the Commission is, what it can and cannot do, who sits on it, what each level of discipline means, and how Proposition 12 changed the rules in 2026
THE QUICK ANSWER
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) is the independent Texas agency that investigates complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial disability. Created by the Texas Constitution in 1965, its 13 members can discipline judges through private or public sanctions, suspend them, or recommend their removal from the bench. Proposition 12, approved by Texas voters in November 2025, changed both the Commission’s composition and its disciplinary authority effective January 1, 2026.
Welcome to the Gavel of Shame
Texas voters elect their judges. But once a judge puts on the robe, who holds them accountable when they cross the line: when they berate the people in front of them, ignore the law, or behave badly off the bench?
In this series, we read the public discipline files of the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct so you don’t have to. We break down real Public Warnings and Public Reprimands: what the judge did, which rule they broke, and what happened next. Some of these stories are infuriating. All of them are public record.
Before we open the first file, you need to understand the body that issues these sanctions. This post is the foundation that explains who the Commission is, what it can and cannot do, who sits on it, and what each level of discipline actually means.
What the Commission Is
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct is an independent Texas state agency, headquartered in Austin. It is not a creation of the Legislature or the courts. It is written directly into Article V, Section 1-a of the Texas Constitution, where voters placed it in 1965.
Its mission, in the Commission’s own words, is to protect the public, promote public confidence in the integrity, independence, competence, and impartiality of the judiciary, and encourage judges to maintain high standards of conduct both on and off the bench. It carries out that mission by investigating allegations of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity.
What the Commission is not is a court of appeals. It cannot reverse a ruling, release anyone from jail, remove a judge from your case, or award you money. Its job is reviewing the judge’s conduct but not the outcome of any individual case. Anyone can file a complaint, no lawyer required, but it must be sworn, on the Commission’s official form, and mailed in. The Commission does not take complaints by phone, fax, or email.
Which Judges It Covers — and Which It Doesn’t
The Commission’s reach extends to nearly every judge in Texas:
- Municipal judges and magistrates
- Justices of the peace
- Constitutional county judges and county court at law judges
- Statutory probate judges
- District judges and appellate judges
- Associate judges and masters
- Retired and former judges sitting by assignment
Just as important is who the Commission cannot touch. It has no authority over:
- Attorneys — including elected and assistant district attorneys. Prosecutor complaints go to the State Bar of Texas, not the Commission.
- Federal judges and magistrates. Those complaints go through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- Administrative law judges, private mediators and arbitrators, court clerks, law enforcement, and jail or prison officials. Each has its own oversight channel.
That distinction matters in criminal defense. If a prosecutor crosses an ethical line, the venue is the State Bar. The Commission is strictly about judges and that is exactly the lane this series stays in.
Who Sits on the Commission
The Commission is a 13-member body fixed by the Texas Constitution. Members serve six-year terms and are not paid for their service.
A major change just took effect. In November 2025, Texas voters approved Proposition 12, which rewrote the Commission’s makeup as of January 1, 2026:
- Before Proposition 12: six judges appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas (one from each court level), two attorneys appointed by the State Bar of Texas, and five citizen members appointed by the Governor.
- After Proposition 12: six judges appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas (at least two must be trial judges, and no two members may come from the same type of court), and seven citizen members appointed by the Governor (each at least 35 years old). The two State Bar attorney seats are eliminated.
The Texas Senate confirms all appointees. The practical effect is that the Governor now appoints a majority (seven of thirteen) of the body that disciplines Texas judges. Supporters, including the amendment’s author, framed it as modernizing oversight and increasing transparency. Critics, including some former commissioners and observers, warned that it concentrates control over judicial discipline in the Governor’s office. We will let you weigh that debate yourself. For the Gavel of Shame, what matters is simply that this is the body whose sanctions we will be examining.
The change is also being phased in. Commissioners already seated keep their seats until their terms end or vacancies open, under a temporary constitutional provision that expires January 1, 2031. In other words, the Commission is mid-transition as this series launches.
As of June 2026, the Commission’s officers are Chair Hon. Gary L. Steel (district judge, Seguin), Vice-Chair Hon. Ken Wise (appeals court justice, Houston), and Secretary Hon. Carey F. Walker (county court at law, Fort Worth). The full sitting roster is below.
| Commissioner | Seat | Location | Appointed By | Term Ends |
| Hon. Gary L. Steel (Chair) | District Judge | Seguin | TX Supreme Court | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. Ken Wise (Vice-Chair) | Appellate Justice | Houston | TX Supreme Court | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. Carey F. Walker (Secretary) | County Court at Law | Fort Worth | TX Supreme Court | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. Wayne Money | Justice of the Peace | Greenville | TX Supreme Court | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. Tano E. Tijerina | Constitutional County Judge | Laredo | TX Supreme Court | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. Sylvia Borunda Firth | Attorney Member | El Paso | State Bar of Texas | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. Kathy P. Ward | Public Member | Plano | Governor | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. Andrew M. “Andy” Kahan | Public Member | Houston | Governor | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. Derek M. Cohen | Public Member | Austin | Governor | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. Yinon Weiss | Public Member | Austin | Governor | 7/1/2026 |
| Hon. April I. Aguirre | Public Member | Pasadena | Governor | 7/1/2026 |
| Vacant | Municipal Judge | — | TX Supreme Court | 7/1/2026 |
Roster as of June 2026. Several terms first expire July 1, 2026. The current list is always posted at scjc.texas.gov
What Else Proposition 12 Changed
The composition change is what drew the headlines, but Proposition 12 also did three less-noticed things that matter more for how Texas judges actually get disciplined.
It narrowed when the Commission can keep discipline private. Before Prop 12, the Commission had broad discretion to issue private sanctions across the entire ladder: private admonitions, private warnings, private reprimands. That is the discretion the public never sees. Prop 12 keeps private sanctions on the table only in a narrower set of cases: a private reprimand or a mandatory training requirement may be issued where the judge has no prior sanctions on record and the conduct does not involve criminal activity. Outside that lane, the discretion to discipline a judge quietly is gone.
It mandated public sanctions or referrals for willful or persistent misconduct. The flip side of the same change: where misconduct is found to be willful or persistent, Prop 12 now requires public discipline or, in the more serious cases, referral for suspension or removal. The Commission no longer has the option to handle that category of case behind closed doors.
It expanded the powers of the review tribunal. The Special Review Tribunal that handles judge-removal cases received two new tools. It can now suspend a judge without pay during the pendency of proceedings, where the previous default was suspension with pay. And in cases that result in removal, the tribunal may bar the former judge from holding any future judicial office in Texas. Both powers are new as of January 1, 2026.
Taken together, the authority changes are not cosmetic. They shift the default in serious cases toward public discipline, they create a category of conduct where private resolution is no longer an option, and they give the tribunal real teeth in the removal cases that reach it. Whether those changes deliver the accountability supporters promised, or chill the disciplinary process critics worry about, is something this series will be watching across the case files to come.
What Counts as Judicial Misconduct
Judicial misconduct is conduct by a judge that brings discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice. It can be a violation of the Texas Constitution, the Penal Code, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or other rules set by the Supreme Court of Texas. Common examples include:
- Demeaning courtroom behavior — yelling, profanity, bias, or slurs
- Using the prestige of the office to advance private interests
- Improper communication with only one side of a case
- Public comment on a pending case
- Sitting on a case where the judge has a financial interest, or where a party or lawyer is a close relative
- Alcohol, drug, or mental health problems that affect the judge’s duties
- Off-the-bench conduct such as sexual harassment, official oppression, theft, threats, or driving while intoxicated
- Endorsing a political candidate, or failing to cooperate with the Commission
What is not misconduct: a wrong ruling. Even if a judge misapplies the law or rules against the weight of the evidence, that is not misconduct. The remedy for that situation is an appeal. The Commission cannot be used as a back door to overturn a decision you disagree with.
The Sanctions Ladder: From Dismissal to Removal
When an investigation is finished, the Commission votes. Its options run from closing the case to recommending a judge’s removal. At the heart of the system is a three-rung disciplinary ladder, listed here from least to most severe: admonition, then warning, then reprimand.
Each of those three rungs comes in two versions and the difference is the whole reason this series exists.
| PRIVATE vs. PUBLIC — WHY IT MATTERS
Private sanction: The judge is disciplined and the complainant learns the outcome, but the judge’s name and the details stay confidential by law. The public never sees it. Public sanction: The order is published, the judge is named, and the conduct is described. This is the public record the Gavel of Shame examines. Bottom line: public discipline is the only judicial discipline the public can actually see. A Public Warning and a Public Reprimand are the two public sanctions you will meet most often in this series. |
| Commission Action | Private or Public? | What It Means |
| Dismissal | Not a sanction | The case is closed. The Commission found no misconduct or not enough evidence. Dismissed cases can later be reconsidered. |
| Order of Additional Education | Usually private; can accompany a sanction | The judge is ordered to complete training. Used when a judge was misguided or exceeded their authority but was not acting in bad faith. |
| Admonition | Private or Public | The least severe formal sanction. It’s an official finding that the judge committed misconduct. |
| Warning | Private or Public | The middle rung, a step above an admonition. A Public Warning names the judge and is published. |
| Reprimand | Private or Public | The most severe sanction the Commission issues short of formal proceedings. A Public Reprimand names the judge and is published. |
| Suspension | Public | The Commission removes a judge from duties (with or without pay) after a felony indictment or an office-related misdemeanor charge. |
| Public Censure | Public | Issued only through formal proceedings. A formal, public condemnation more serious than a reprimand. |
| Recommendation of Removal | Public | Through formal proceedings, the Commission can recommend that a judge be removed. The Commission itself cannot remove a judge — only a Review Tribunal can, subject to review by the Texas Supreme Court. |
Two other outcomes round out the picture. A judge may enter a Voluntary Agreement to Resign in lieu of discipline, which is public once the Commission accepts it. And in the most serious cases, the Commission can launch formal proceedings, which is the path that leads to a Public Censure or a removal recommendation.
One important caveat as of January 1, 2026: the ladder above still exists in full, but Prop 12 changed when each rung can be used. As explained in “What Else Proposition 12 Changed” above, private sanctions (a private reprimand or an order of additional education) are now only available where the judge has no prior sanctions on record and the conduct does not involve criminal activity. Willful or persistent misconduct must be addressed through public discipline or referred for suspension or removal. The private/public choice is no longer purely the Commission’s discretion.
How a Judge Fights a Sanction
A sanctioned judge is not necessarily stuck with the result. Within 30 days of a public or private sanction, or an order of education, the judge can ask the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court to appoint a Special Court of Review which is a panel of three appellate justices.
That triggers a trial de novo: the case starts over from the beginning, as if the Commission had never acted. The hearing is public, and the judge is not entitled to a jury. The Special Court of Review can dismiss the case, affirm the Commission, impose a greater or lesser sanction, or order formal proceedings. Its decision is final.
Keep that in mind as you read the files in this series: a public sanction on the books is one the judge either accepted or appealed and did not overturn.
A Note on NATIONAL EDITION
Most of the files in this series are Texas SCJC files, drawn from the public discipline orders we have just walked through. But this series also publishes NATIONAL EDITION case files, which involve federal judges in jurisdictions outside Texas. Federal judges are not subject to the SCJC. They are governed by a separate statute that operates on a different set of rules and remedies.
Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364), complaints against federal judges are reviewed first by the chief judge of the relevant federal circuit, then (in serious cases) by a special investigative committee and the circuit’s judicial council, and finally, on review, by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Available sanctions short of impeachment include private and public reprimand, an order temporarily suspending case assignments, and a request that the judge voluntarily retire. Only Congress can remove an Article III federal judge from office (by impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution) and only fifteen federal judges in the entire history of the United States have ever been impeached by the House.
NATIONAL EDITION files use the same case-file format as the Texas entries you will see throughout this series, but the institutional framework above is the one that applies to them. Case Files 13, 17, and 18 are the series’ first three NATIONAL EDITION entries.
What’s Next in the Gavel of Shame
Now you know the machinery including the body, its makeup, what misconduct is, where a Public Warning and a Public Reprimand fall on the ladder, what Proposition 12 changed about the Commission’s authority, and how the federal system works for the NATIONAL EDITION entries. In the next installment, we start opening the files: real Texas judges, real public sanctions, and the conduct that earned them.
| THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO YOUR CASE MATTERS
At Deandra Grant Law, we are in North Texas courtrooms every week. We know these judges, these courts, and how they run. If you are facing a DWI or criminal charge in Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, Denton, Rockwall, or McLennan County, put that experience on your side. Call (214) 225-7117 • texasdwisite.com |
The Gavel of Shame • Part One
By Deandra Grant • Deandra Grant Law • Published May 2026 • Updated June 12, 2026
Sources
Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. scjc.texas.gov
Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 1-a. statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Texas Proposition 12 / SJR 27, 89th Legislature (2025). Bill analysis and enrolled text: capitol.texas.gov
Ballotpedia, “Texas Proposition 12, Change Membership and Authority of State Commission on Judicial Conduct Amendment (2025).” ballotpedia.org
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364. law.cornell.edu
This post provides general information about a public agency and public records. It is not legal advice and does not allege wrongdoing by any judge beyond what appears in published public sanctions.
