Chief Justice Blacklock told the Texas Judicial Council on May 13 that lawmakers finished a “historic” final‑day compromise that produced a 25% base pay increase for district judges and related pay adjustments across the judicial salary schedule.

The change, packaged in Senate Bill 293, will base many judicial and related salaries on the district‑judge base pay and creates new accountability and reporting requirements, the chief justice said. “It included the 25% increase to the base pay, but it also has a lot of other accountability measures and significant changes to the Judicial Conduct Commission,” Chief Justice Blacklock said.

Why it matters: Judicial pay is the anchor for salary changes that affect appellate justices, county‑court at‑law judges, prosecutors and supplements tied to the district base. Council leaders said the raise and the package were crucial to recruit and retain judges and to remove a prior linkage between judicial pay and legislative pensions that had complicated prior efforts.

Key provisions and provisions the council described
- Salary increase: SB 293 implements a 25% increase to the district‑judge base salary; other judicial pay points (appellate justices, county‑court at‑law supplements and longevity tiers) are calculated from that base.
- Judicial conduct and accountability: SB 293 adds reporting duties for district judges (hours presiding at courthouse, hours on other judicial duties including case work, admin tasks and continuing education). The bill also revises the definition of “willful or persistent conduct” to include failure to meet deadlines, performance standards and clearance‑rate expectations; it also addresses persistent or willful violation of Article 17.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (rules for setting bail), the council reported.
- SJR 27 and Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC): The enabling language for SJR 27 is included in SB 293. If approved by voters, SJR 27 will change JCC composition: six judges appointed by the Supreme Court (two must be trial judges) and seven members appointed by the governor, the council said.

Council discussion and concerns
Council members said the package was the result of late bargaining in the legislature and credited bipartisan work in the conference committee. “It was a really extraordinary thing for both chambers to show the support for the courts,” Chief Justice Blacklock said. Representative Moody and Senator Zaffirini were singled out in the meeting for their roles in conference negotiations.

Council members also flagged county supplements as a concern: the state increase is intended to be in addition to, not in lieu of, county salary supplements. OCA staff reported that about 88% of district judges receive some county supplement today, and some counties have publicly discussed reducing the supplement, which could offset the state increase locally. Council members discussed drafting a joint letter from legislative allies and the council to county judges to clarify legislative intent on maintaining supplements.

What the council decided
The meeting discussion focused on information sharing and drafting follow‑up communications. No standalone council action adopting or vetoing SB 293 was recorded in the meeting; the council’s presenters described the legislation and recommended outreach to county judges to preserve local supplements.

Ending
Council leaders said the judiciary will monitor implementation details, especially the JCC composition change pending the constitutional amendment vote, and the council will follow up on communication with county officials to reduce the risk that some local supplements are lowered in response to the state raise.