Article III, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution ("Ineligibility for Offices; Voting for Members; Interest in Contracts")

From TLG
Jump to navigation Jump to search

As amended November 5, 1968:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the term for which he was elected, be eligible to (1) any civil office of profit under this State which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which may have been increased, during such term, or (2) any office or place, the appointment to which may be made, in whole or in part, by either branch of the Legislature; provided, however, the fact that the term of office of Senators and Representatives does not end precisely on the last day of December but extends a few days into January of the succeeding year shall be considered as de minimis, and the ineligibility herein created shall terminate on the last day in December of the last full calendar year of the term for which he was elected. No member of either House shall vote for any other member for any office whatever, which may be filled by a vote of the Legislature, except in such cases as are in this Constitution provided, nor shall any member of the Legislature be interested, either directly or indirectly, in any contract with the State, or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during the term for which he was elected.

Editor Comments

Note that Article IV, Section 17(b) provides: "An increase in the emoluments of the office of Lieutenant Governor does not make a member of the Legislature ineligible to serve in the office of Lieutenant Governor."

Attorney Steve Smith

Recent Decisions

None.

Historic Decisions

  • Damon v. Cornett, 781 S.W.2d 597, 600 (Tex. 1989) ("We acknowledge that the framers of article III, section 18 were attempting to prevent improper financial gain . . . . We cannot agree with respondent, however, that the framers meant to place a lifetime 'mark of Cain' on every citizen who is willing to benefit our state by serving in the legislature. While it is highly desirable to bar improper personal gain by former legislators, we believe that this concern can be more effectively addressed through appropriate legislation rather than an overbroad judicial interpretation of the constitution.")
  • Hall v. Baum, 452 S.W.2d 699, 705 (Tex. 1970) ("Our analysis of the cited cases from other jurisdictions indicates a total lack of unanimity of thought as to the wisdom of nullifying the constitutional proscriptions with which we are dealing, as well as a lack of unanimity of reasons for their nullification. . . . If Sec. 18, Art. III, has outlived its usefulness and there is no longer need for the proscriptions there provided, as some of the courts of other states have indicated, the Constitution itself prescribes the remedy through a constitutional amendment submitted to and adopted by the people.")

Library Resources

Online Resources