Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 24: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
Between 1881 and 1991, the Legislature passed twenty-five proposed amendments affecting this section. Only five of those were approved by voters. Amendments were approved in 1930, 1954, 1960, 1975, and 1991.
Between 1881 and 1991, the Legislature passed twenty-five proposed amendments affecting this section. Only five of those were approved by voters. Amendments were approved in 1930, 1954, 1960, 1975, and 1991.


Note that the Texas Attorney General, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. [https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1967/cm0104.pdf#page=3 M-104] (1967), opined that: "[The 1960 amendment to this section provided] in addition to per diem and traveling expenses an annual salary for members of the Legislature, thus recognizing that official duties of members of the Legislature are performed throughout the year and are not limited to duties performed while the Legislature is in session." And that, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. [https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1969/cm0408.pdf#page=6 M-408] (1969), he further opined that: "In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that there exists no constitutional inhibition as to the use of state funds and their application to group sickness and accident policy premium payments for legislators themselves. . . . We do not interpret such a benefit as additional 'salary', 'per diem' or 'mileage', as those terms are used in Article III, Section 24 of the Constitution of Texas." Nevertheless, a substantial question exists regarding the constitutionality under this section of the significant and preferential retirement benefits currently provided to members of the Legislature. While the pension payments of regular state workers are calculated based on their own salaries, legislative retirement benefits are based on the salaries of state district judges.
Note that the Texas Attorney General, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. [https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1967/cm0104.pdf#page=3 M-104] (1967), opined that: "[The 1960 amendment to this section provided] in addition to per diem and traveling expenses an annual salary for members of the Legislature, thus recognizing that official duties of members of the Legislature are performed throughout the year and are not limited to duties performed while the Legislature is in session." And that, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. [https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1969/cm0408.pdf#page=6 M-408] (1969), he further opined that: "In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that there exists no constitutional inhibition as to the use of state funds and their application to group sickness and accident policy premium payments for legislators themselves. . . . We do not interpret such a benefit as additional 'salary', 'per diem' or 'mileage', as those terms are used in Article III, Section 24 of the Constitution of Texas." Nevertheless, a substantial question exists regarding the constitutionality under this section of the significant and preferential retirement benefits currently provided to members of the Legislature. While the pension payments of regular state workers are calculated based on their own salaries, legislative retirement benefits are based on the salaries of full-time state district judges.


|recent=
|recent=

Navigation menu