5,933
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 3: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
m (Text replacement - "TEX. CONST." to "Tex. Const.") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
Without any recorded debate, section twenty-one was dropped by the Constitutional Convention of 1875 from the State of Texas's fifth and current Bill of Rights. Cf. ''Reid v. Rolling Fork Pub. Util. Dist.'', 979 F.2d 1084, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14225699397135994464#p1089 1089] (5th Cir. 1992) ("Reid also urges that even if his federal constitutional claim is defeated, his claim under the Texas Constitution's equal protection clause survives. . . . There is ample support in Texas case law for the District's contention that the same requirements are applied to equal protection challenges under the Texas Constitution as to those under the United States Constitution."). | Without any recorded debate, section twenty-one was dropped by the Constitutional Convention of 1875 from the State of Texas's fifth and current Bill of Rights. Cf. ''Reid v. Rolling Fork Pub. Util. Dist.'', 979 F.2d 1084, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14225699397135994464#p1089 1089] (5th Cir. 1992) ("Reid also urges that even if his federal constitutional claim is defeated, his claim under the Texas Constitution's equal protection clause survives. . . . There is ample support in Texas case law for the District's contention that the same requirements are applied to equal protection challenges under the Texas Constitution as to those under the United States Constitution."). | ||
The courts and commentators | The courts and commentators often insert the term "free men" rather than "freemen" when quoting the text of this section. Because it appears in the enrolled version of the Texas Constitution, "freemen" is used here. Cf. Joshua Morrow, ''There Is Only One Texas Constitution'', 52 St. Mary's L.J. 765, [https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=thestmaryslawjournal&#page=72 835-36] (2021) ("One constitution governs Texas: the manuscript constitution that the delegates to the Convention of 1875 signed and enrolled. . . . No longer should any court cite a pre-ratification copy as law, although courts can use those copies to help dispel any ambiguities that appear in the ratified text."). | ||
Finally, note that no published appellate court decision has ever detailed the origin or otherwise discussed the history of this section's unique text. Cf. ''State v. Webb'', 238 Conn. 389, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7451084436936559118#p409 409] (1996) (citation omitted) ("Thus, as the defendant acknowledges, the concepts of the social compact and of natural law as sources of unenumerated constitutional rights are intertwined. Indeed, we have treated the two as functionally the same. We now, therefore, reaffirm . . . that neither the social compact clause nor its counterpart, natural law, constitutes a source of unenumerated rights under our constitutional scheme."). | Finally, note that no published appellate court decision has ever detailed the origin or otherwise discussed the history of this section's unique text. Cf. ''State v. Webb'', 238 Conn. 389, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7451084436936559118#p409 409] (1996) (citation omitted) ("Thus, as the defendant acknowledges, the concepts of the social compact and of natural law as sources of unenumerated constitutional rights are intertwined. Indeed, we have treated the two as functionally the same. We now, therefore, reaffirm . . . that neither the social compact clause nor its counterpart, natural law, constitutes a source of unenumerated rights under our constitutional scheme."). | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
|recent= | |recent= | ||
* ''State v. Loe'', 692 S.W.3d 215, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9682881558926563485#p236 236-37] (Tex. 2024)("Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution provides the following guarantee of equal rights: 'All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights . . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 3. We have typically referred to Section 3 as our Constitution's 'equal protection' clause. ''See'' ''Bell v. Low Income Women of Tex.'', 95 S.W.3d 253, 257 n.4 (Tex. 2002). In 1972, Texans adopted the Equal Rights Amendment, which states, '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 3a. For convenience, we will refer to these two provisions jointly as the Equal Rights Clauses. We evaluate alleged violations of the Equal Rights Clauses in three steps.") | * ''State v. Loe'', 692 S.W.3d 215, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9682881558926563485#p236 236-37] (Tex. 2024) ("Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution provides the following guarantee of equal rights: 'All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights . . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 3. We have typically referred to Section 3 as our Constitution's 'equal protection' clause. ''See'' ''Bell v. Low Income Women of Tex.'', 95 S.W.3d 253, 257 n.4 (Tex. 2002). In 1972, Texans adopted the Equal Rights Amendment, which states, '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 3a. For convenience, we will refer to these two provisions jointly as the Equal Rights Clauses. We evaluate alleged violations of the Equal Rights Clauses in three steps.") | ||
* ''Klumb v. Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys.'', 458 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5024006811308680141#p13 13] (Tex. 2015) ("The Texas Constitution provides that all people 'have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges.' . . . In conducting a rational-basis review, we consider whether the challenged action has a rational basis and whether use of the challenged classification would reasonably promote that purpose. ''Id''. These determinations are 'not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.' ''FCC v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc.'', 508 U.S. 307, 315, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993).") | * ''Klumb v. Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys.'', 458 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5024006811308680141#p13 13] (Tex. 2015) ("The Texas Constitution provides that all people 'have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges.' . . . In conducting a rational-basis review, we consider whether the challenged action has a rational basis and whether use of the challenged classification would reasonably promote that purpose. ''Id''. These determinations are 'not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.' ''FCC v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc.'', 508 U.S. 307, 315, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993).") | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
* ''First American Title Ins. Co. v. Combs'', 258 S.W.3d 627, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8227542418100022905#p638 638-39] (Tex. 2008) (footnote omitted) ("'[T]he federal analytical approach applies to equal protection challenges under the Texas Constitution,' so resolution of the federal equal protection claim will also resolve the State equal protection claim. We conclude that the Comptroller's interpretation of the relevant statutes does not violate the insurers' equal protection rights. . . . This rational-basis review requires us to answer two questions: '(1) Does the challenged legislation have a legitimate purpose? and (2) Was it reasonable for the lawmakers to believe that use of the challenged classification would promote that purpose?'") | * ''First American Title Ins. Co. v. Combs'', 258 S.W.3d 627, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8227542418100022905#p638 638-39] (Tex. 2008) (footnote omitted) ("'[T]he federal analytical approach applies to equal protection challenges under the Texas Constitution,' so resolution of the federal equal protection claim will also resolve the State equal protection claim. We conclude that the Comptroller's interpretation of the relevant statutes does not violate the insurers' equal protection rights. . . . This rational-basis review requires us to answer two questions: '(1) Does the challenged legislation have a legitimate purpose? and (2) Was it reasonable for the lawmakers to believe that use of the challenged classification would promote that purpose?'") | ||
* ''Fort Worth Osteopathic Hosp., Inc. v. Reese'', 148 S.W.3d 94, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11799262158355772649#p97 97-98] (Tex. 2004) ("The Fourteenth Amendment provides that 'No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.' U.S. | * ''Fort Worth Osteopathic Hosp., Inc. v. Reese'', 148 S.W.3d 94, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11799262158355772649#p97 97-98] (Tex. 2004) ("The Fourteenth Amendment provides that 'No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.' U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1. The Texas Constitution contains a similar provision: '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. 1, § 3. The parties do not argue any distinction between these two clauses, and we have said that both guarantees 'require a similar multi-tiered analysis.' ''Ford Motor Co. v. Sheldon'', 22 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. 2000); ''see also'' ''Rose v. Doctors Hosp.'', 801 S.W.2d 841, 846 (Tex. 1990) ('Texas cases echo federal standards when determining whether a statute violates equal protection.').") | ||
* ''Bell v. Low Income Women of Texas'', 95 S.W.3d 253, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6848930107102445989#p265 265-66] (Tex. 2002) ("They rely on two cases which they claim suggest that we have 'applied a rational basis test more exacting than mere reasonableness,' in which the statutory classification must be rationally related not only to a legitimate state interest as required under federal law, but to the very object or subject of the legislation. . . . We do not read ''Whitworth'' and ''Richards'' to establish the more exacting standard the plaintiffs suggest. To the extent they might suggest such a standard, we have recently clarified that the federal analytical approach applies to equal protection challenges under the Texas Constitution.") | * ''Bell v. Low Income Women of Texas'', 95 S.W.3d 253, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6848930107102445989#p265 265-66] (Tex. 2002) ("They rely on two cases which they claim suggest that we have 'applied a rational basis test more exacting than mere reasonableness,' in which the statutory classification must be rationally related not only to a legitimate state interest as required under federal law, but to the very object or subject of the legislation. . . . We do not read ''Whitworth'' and ''Richards'' to establish the more exacting standard the plaintiffs suggest. To the extent they might suggest such a standard, we have recently clarified that the federal analytical approach applies to equal protection challenges under the Texas Constitution.") | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
|seo_title=Featured Article: Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution ("Equal Rights Provision") | |seo_title=Featured Article: Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution ("Equal Rights Provision") | ||
|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 3, Texas equal protection clause, Texas equal rights provision | |seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 3, Texas equal protection clause, Texas equal rights provision | ||
|seo_description=This section declares: "All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights | |seo_description=This section declares: "All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights." | ||
|seo_image_alt=Texas equal rights provision | |seo_image_alt=Texas equal rights provision | ||