Could a former Texas district judge who lost reelection still serve as a visiting judge?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-586: Defeated Judge Assignments
Plain-English summary
JM-586 concluded that a former Texas district judge did not become ineligible for assignment as a visiting judge merely because the judge had lost reelection. The holding applied when the former judge otherwise met the assignment requirements. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
Earlier law and its nonsubstantive Government Code recodification had included a rule that a former district judge must not have been defeated for reelection. The 1985 Court Administration Act omitted that condition and expressly repealed the former article containing it. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
The same legislative session had also reenacted the old eligibility condition in a judicial-retirement measure. JM-586 applied the Code Construction Act and prior AG opinions to conclude that the later, comprehensive Court Administration Act controlled and repealed the inconsistent condition effective January 1, 1986. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
Did losing reelection automatically disqualify the former judge?
No. JM-586 said a former district judge who was otherwise eligible could still receive a district-court assignment despite having been defeated for reelection. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
Why did the older eligibility language not control?
The opinion treated the Court Administration Act as the legislature's controlling law for district-court assignments. That act omitted the reelection-defeat restriction and expressly repealed former article 200a. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
What role did the Government Code recodification play?
The Government Code carried forward the older eligibility language as a nonsubstantive recodification. JM-586 concluded that it yielded to the conflicting substantive Court Administration Act enacted by the same legislature. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
Did another 1985 act reenact the old restriction?
Yes. The opinion said a judicial-retirement act reenacted the condition that a former judge must not have lost reelection, but the Court Administration Act later repealed all of former article 200a, including that reenactment. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
Background and statutory framework
The request required the AG to compare three enactments from the same legislative session: a nonsubstantive judicial-code recodification, a judicial-retirement enactment that restored the old condition, and the Court Administration Act. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
JM-586 relied on Code Construction Act rules that preserve same-session amendments despite codification and give a conflicting substantive enactment priority over a code enacted by the same legislature. It also followed Attorney General Opinions JM-474 and JM-506, which had treated the Court Administration Act as displacing inconsistent provisions carried into the Government Code. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
Citations and references
The opinion cited the following authorities. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
Statutes:
- Former V.T.C.S. art. 200a
- V.T.C.S. art. 200a-1, the Court Administration Act
- Gov't Code § 74.032
- Gov't Code § 311.031(c), (d)
Prior opinions:
- Attorney General Opinion JM-474 (1986)
- Attorney General Opinion JM-506 (1986)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0586
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0586.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.
December 22, 1986
Honorable Oscar H. Mauzy
Chairman
Committee on Jurisprudence
Texas State Senate
P. O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711
Opinion No. JM-586
Re: Eligibility of a defeated former district judge to serve as a visiting judge under article 200a-1, V.T.C.S.
Dear Senator Mauzy:
You inquire whether a former district judge who has been defeated for reelection, and is otherwise eligible for assignment by the presiding judge of the administrative region, may sit in a district court on assignment. We conclude that a former district judge is not ineligible for assignment by reason of the judge's defeat for reelection.
Former article 200a, V.T.C.S., which is recodified in the judicial title of the Government Code, provided that a former district judge who, among other things, has not been defeated for reelection may be assigned to the district courts by the presiding judge of the administrative district. See Gov't Code § 74.032. The Court Administration Act, codified as article 200a-1, V.T.C.S., and effective on January 1, 1986, does not contain the requirement that a former judge must have not been defeated for reelection and expressly repeals article 200a.
Attorney General Opinion JM-474 (1986) relates to a provision in former article 200a that prohibited the assignment of judges to the district courts in Harris County. That prohibition was not retained in the Court Administration Act which the legislature enacted on May 27, 1985. We concluded in Attorney General Opinion JM-474 that the prohibition against assignment in Harris County no longer exists. This office observed in that opinion that, historically, article 200a had governed the assignment of regular district judges and certain retired and former district judges to preside in the district courts of the state. See also Attorney General Opinion JM-506 (1986). Attorney General Opinion JM-474 also notes that the judicial title of the Government Code is a nonsubstantive recodification of the judiciary statutes enacted by chapter 480, Sixty-ninth Legislature, on May 17, 1985. Chapter 480 expressly repealed all of article 200a as part of the recodification and recodified without change the provisions of article 200a that related to eligibility for assignment, including the requirement of assignment about which you inquire. See Gov't Code § 74.032(3):11).
Also, on May 27, 1985, the legislature passed chapter 602 relating to judicial retirement, which became effective September 1, 1985 and reenacted in article 200a the eligibility requirement that a former judge must not have been defeated for reelection.
As noted in Attorney General Opinion JM-474, the Code Construction Act in section 311.031(d) of the Government Code provides that if any provision of a code conflicts with a statute enacted by the same legislature that enacted the code, the statute controls. Also, section 311.031(c) states that the repeal of a statute by a code does not affect an amendment or reenactment of the statute by the same legislature that enacted the code. While many, but not all, of the provisions of former article 200a are retained in chapter 4 of the Court Administration Act, that act expressly repealed all of article 200a effective January 1, 1986 and enacted in its place a new and more comprehensive act for the administration of the courts.
As to eligibility for assignment of a former judge, the Court Administration Act conflicts with the recodification of article 200a in section 74.032 of the Government Code, and it is our opinion that the Court Administration Act prevails. This office concluded in Attorney General Opinion JM-474 that the Court Administration Act repealed inconsistent provisions incorporated in the new Government Code. Effective January 1, 1986, the Court Administration Act expressly repealed all of article 200a, including its reenactment by chapter 602. See also Attorney General Opinion JM-506.
It is our opinion that the legislature intends the Court Administration Act to control the law on the subjects with which it deals, including the assignment of judges in the district courts of this state. Under the Court Administration Act, a former district judge who is otherwise eligible for assignment is no longer ineligible to serve as a visiting judge because the judge was defeated for reelection.
SUMMARY
A former district judge who is otherwise eligible for assignment to the district courts of this state is not ineligible for assignment because the judge was defeated for reelection.
Very truly yours,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1986 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.