In his first State of the Judiciary address, recently appointed Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock echoed some of the sentiments that had become a mainstay of the speeches his predecessor, retired Chief Justice Nathan Hecht.
Increasing judicial salaries was the first issue on Chief Justice Blacklock’s agenda for the roughly 20-minute speech given to members of both chambers at the Texas Capitol Wednesday morning. The speech was also livestreamed and is available for viewing on the Texas Supreme Court’s YouTube channel.
Chief Justice Blacklock asked the audience to consider the amount of power judges have over the lives of citizens — the power to take their money, property and even children away from families.
“Who do we want wielding all of that power and influence? Surely, we want the most serious and hardworking judges we can find. The bottom line is this: You get what you pay for,” he said, explaining that higher pay will attract more qualified candidates to the bench. “Salaries aren’t the only piece of the puzzle, but they’re an essential piece and we can’t ignore it. We have ignored it, though, for quite a while.”
Lawmakers have not increased judicial salaries, despite repeated requests, since 2013. Inflation has risen 34.5 percent in that time, Chief Justice Blacklock said.
“I’m recommending a 30 percent increase in base pay for judges this session,” he said. “… I’m not even asking you to keep up with inflation.”
Should that increase be passed by lawmakers, it would mean Texas would rank 31st out of 50 states for judicial salaries. It currently pays its jurists less than only two other states.
“I promise you if this: If you make the commitment I’m asking for this session, I will not be back next session asking for more money for our judges,” he said. “The money is there this session.”
The chief justice also took time to address detractors who would prefer not to raise the salaries of any judges based on the performance of an underperforming handful of those elected to the bench. He said his request shouldn’t be viewed as something that will benefit judges, but something that will benefit the constituents of each lawmaker, and the business environment of the state, too.
“I understand the concern that there are some judges not pulling their weight,” he said. “I’m not asking you to give this person or that person a raise, I’m asking you to raise the appeal of these offices.”
The state’s constitution allows for the removal of judges who are neglectful or incompetent, he said.
“If we forget about these tools, or don’t use them because we think it will be too difficult or make us look bad, then we’re not allowing our constitution to operate the way it was designed,” he said. “Instead of holding down the salaries of 98 percent of judges because 2 percent aren’t doing their job, we should use the constitution to make the 2 percent find a new job and pay all our judges a salary that is commensurate with the extraordinary responsibility that our constitution asks them to bear.”
One line that drew applause came when Chief Justice Blacklock spoke of competing constitutional philosophies and explained that constitutional originalism is what guides the court he oversees. He explained that in his view, those who subscribe to the “living constitution” philosophy are wrong because it “puts judges, and not the people, in charge of whether the constitution will change.”
“And that is not the rule of law,” he said. “It sounds much more like the rule of judges. Hear me say this: In Texas, under this Supreme Court, the living constitution is dead. And that fact is a big reason why I can confidently say that the state of our judiciary is strong.”
The chief justice also delved into a project he’s asked the Supreme Court advisory committee to look into: doing away with the so-called rotating docket system employed by the courts in Bexar and Travis counties, which cover San Antonio and Austin. The comments came during a portion of his speech addressing the importance of having “more consistent, predictable and accurate” judges, which he said will decrease litigation as a whole.
“It’s awfully hard, though, for parties to rely on consistent and predictable rulings when they might have one judge at today’s hearing and another judge at the hearing next week, who may not know what happened at the first hearing,” he said, explaining the practice only happens in two out of the state’s 254 counties. “It is an outlier compared to nearly all the courts across the state and country that I’m familiar with. … I’ve asked the court’s advisory committee to recommend rules to eliminate this rotating docket, sometimes called the central docket.”
Another job he’s given the advisory committee, he said, is to look into whether Texas should “join every other court in the nation by granting petitions for review before requiring full merits briefing.”
That issue is something that the court has been addressing since at least mid-2022, when the justices began, in certain cases, granting review before requesting merits briefing. That’s another way Chief Justice Blacklock suggested the court can help lower the cost of litigation for all Texans.
He noted that former Chief Justice Hecht would often use the speech to discuss the court’s access to justice initiatives for low-income Texans.
“The court, as a whole, will keep up that effort,” he said. “But my focus will be on systemic reform. … We’re also looking at how we regulate the legal profession. It’s not just the poor that have trouble affording lawyers in Texas.”
He said it’s incumbent on elected officials to consider whether “the way we regulate the profession is part of the problem.”
In August 2024, after a 22-month review process, the Texas Supreme Court issued a set of preliminary rules that would allow some nonlawyers, such as licensed paraprofessionals and court-access assistants, to provide limited civil legal services to low-income Texans. Chief Justice Blacklock said he’d be open to hearing alternative viewpoints if they are coming from a place of concern about limiting fraud and abuse and protecting consumers of legal services.
“But if the opposition comes from a position of protecting lawyers from economic competition, then I’m not interested,” he said.