As Texas nears its bicentennial in 2036, the state’s rapid expansion is placing unprecedented pressure on an often-overlooked pillar of the Texas Miracle: the judiciary. With nearly 400,000 new residents arriving in 2025 alone and millions more expected over the next decade, the demand for timely, efficient, and accessible justice is surging.
In a recent episode of the Future of Texas podcast, former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson joined Luis Soberon, who leads justice policy at Texas 2036, to discuss the modernization of the state’s legal infrastructure. Their conversation outlines a vision where technology and policy reform converge to ensure that “justice delayed is justice denied” does not become the reality for the Lone Star State.
The most pressing challenge facing the Texas judiciary is a stark asymmetry in access. Justice Jefferson points out that while major corporations and wealthy individuals have the resources to “strategize in ways to get their conflict resolved,” ordinary citizens often find themselves priced out of the system.
“If you don’t have the money, then you don’t have access to justice,” Jefferson notes. This problem is particularly acute in high-volume civil dockets—such as debt collection, landlord-tenant disputes, and child support—where one side often has legal representation while the other has none. Without access to a lawyer, Jefferson warns that Texans “can lose [their] kids… lose [their] small business… or [they] might be in jail because [they] don’t have a good defense lawyer”.
Soberon highlights a “vast middle class” that struggles to fit legal representation into tight budgets, existing in a gap between those who qualify for legal aid and those with the means to pay thousands in retainers.
The Texas court system has a history of successful pivot points. Jefferson recalls arriving at the court in 2001 to find a computer system “based on DOS” and briefs arriving in physical boxes. His tenure saw the launch of statewide electronic filing (e-filing) and the introduction of cameras in the courtroom, which made the “deliberative process” of the Supreme Court transparent to all Texans.
These innovations proved vital during the COVID-19 pandemic. “If we hadn’t had e-filing when the pandemic hit, the justice system would come to a halt,” Jefferson explains. The pandemic further forced the adoption of “Zoom courts,” which are now becoming a permanent fixture of how people interface with the system.
Now, the legal world faces the “transformative” arrival of Artificial Intelligence. While Jefferson cautions that AI can “hallucinate” or provide false citations, he views it as a tool to “enhance the practice of law” and “transform the access of ordinary people to legal jargon that today no one can understand”. Soberon envisions AI-powered “self-help kiosks” or chatbots that help self-represented litigants navigate the complexities of a courthouse or translate legal requirements into “every language”.
Population growth necessitates a physical expansion of the courts. Every legislative session, lawmakers must create new courts by statute based on the number of residents and case filings. However, more judges bring a unique Texas challenge: the Partisan election system.
With over 3,000 elected judges in the state, voters in urban counties may face a ballot with 70 to 80 different judicial races. Jefferson questions if this is the best method, noting that many voters choose based on “party affiliation, the sound of your name, or how much money you raise”.
“The rule of law is what guides [judges],” Jefferson says, arguing for a system that prioritizes merit over political contests. He suggests a combination of “merit at the beginning” through an appointment process and “accountability by the voters” through retention elections.
A major hurdle for policy researchers is the fragmented nature of Texas court data. Soberon explains that currently, much of the data is reported in aggregate, with large categories of criminal cases simply labeled as “other”.
Texas is currently moving toward a “case-level data system” that will allow for sophisticated analysis of dockets and backlogs. “You can’t figure out where backlogs are really happening and why they’re happening” with aggregate data, Soberon says. By isolating these bottlenecks, the state can identify “exceptional, good performers” and replicate their successes statewide.
Both leaders agree that transparency is critical to public confidence. Jefferson notes that when citizens serve on juries and see “how the judge controls the case” and how “judges are really struggling to get to the right answer,” their evaluation of the system increases.
Transparency also means making the system easier to navigate. Soberon advocates for simple technological fixes, such as text-based court reminders to prevent “fail to appear” warrants. “You can get a text reminder for your dog’s grooming appointment, but you may not get a text reminder for a life-altering court date,” Soberon points out.
As the bicentennial approaches, the measure of success will be whether the judiciary has kept pace with the state’s complexity. Soberon points to “clearance rates” and controlled backlogs as the key metric. For Jefferson, the goal is more fundamental: that by 2036, every citizen can resolve their basic civil and criminal needs in a court of law, regardless of their financial status.
“Texas should be a state leading the way in making sure that every citizen can resolve their basic civil and criminal needs,” Jefferson concludes. To get there, Jefferson says, the state must right-size its investment in the “indispensable” third branch of government, ensuring that the technology, people, and processes are in place to deliver on the promise of equal justice for all Texans.