Article XV, Section 7 of the Texas Constitution ("Removal of Officers When Mode Not Provided")

From TLG
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Adopted February 15, 1876:

The Legislature shall provide by law for the trial and removal from office of all officers of this State, the modes for which have not been provided in this Constitution.

Editor Comments

The mandate of this section is currently satisfied by Chapter 665 of the Government Code and Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code.

Note that Section 665.002 of the Government Code expands the officers subject to impeachment beyond those listed in Article XV, Section 2.

Attorney Steve Smith

Recent Decisions

None.

Historic Decisions

  • Knox v. Johnson, 141 S.W.2d 698, 700 (Tex.Civ.App.–Austin 1940, ref'd) ("We think there can be little, if any, doubt that the superintendent of the San Antonio State Hospital is an officer of the State of Texas. Much has been written on whether the occupant of a public position is a public officer as contradistinguished from a public employee. The best and most comprehensive discussion of this subject that we have found is contained in State of Montana ex rel. Barney v. Hawkins . . . . An examination of the constitution and the statutes, in the light of the authorities, leads to the inescapable conclusion that Dr. Johnson, as such superintendent, is an officer of the State.")
  • Dorenfield v. State, 73 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. 1934) ("The exact language of the Constitution (article 15, § 7), after providing . . . . The certificate shows no basis whatever for any claim that respondent was removed following a trial. Yet, a trial was an indispensable part of the constitutional mode for his removal as an officer of this state. Certainly no other meaning can be reasonably ascribed to the Texas Constitution than as requiring trial to precede removal, under section 7, article 15, when under every mode of removal expressly provided by, that article an officer is given the important safeguards of a trial, including formal written charges, notice, and an opportunity to be heard.")
  • Bonner v. Belsterling, 138 S.W. 571, 575 (Tex. 1911) ("It is objected that the removal by recall is violative of that section, because it does not provide for a trial of the officer. The section applies only to 'officers of the state.' In the connection in which it is used, the language must be held to refer to the class of officers treated of in that section, but omitted therefrom. We are of opinion that 'officers of the state' have the same signification as 'state officer.' In article 5, § 24, the removal of all county officers had been provided for, and the language of section 7 of article 15 had the effect to include all state officers not included in that article. The objection is not sound, and is overruled.")

Library Resources

Online Resources