Article XVI, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution (discussion page)

Texas Legal Guide (texaslegalguide.com) is currently under construction.

This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page Article XVI, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution.

add ?

Brown v. State, 238 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex. Crim. App. 1950) (holding that an oath to perform the duties of a special judge "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State" but did not include an obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitutions and laws did not satisfy the constitutional oath requirements).

Under the Aldine standard, the "determining factor ... is whether any sovereign function of the government is conferred upon the individual to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public largely independent of the control of oth~rs." Id. at 583. Courts of appeals and this office rely on the Aldine standard to determine whether a person is a public officer required to take the constitutional oath of office under article XVI, section 1.

https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2017/kp0140.pdf

review

Flatm v. State, 56 Tex. 93, 98 (1882)

Weathe+rdv. State, 21 S.W. 251,251 (Xx. Grim. App. 1893)

review

Bell v. Faulkner, 19 S.W. 480 (Tex 1892); Hagler v. State, 31 S.W.2d 653, 654 (Tex. Grim. App. 1930); Keel v. RaihmdComm ?I, 107 S.W.Zd 439,441 (Xx. Civ. App.-Austin 1937, writ ref'd).

add?

Prieto Bail Bonds v. Tex., 994 S.W.2d 3 16,3 18-20 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1999, pet. ref'd)

fyi: The Aldine standard is also the appropriate standard by which to determine, under article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution, whether a particular position is a public office. We therefore overrule Attorney General Opinions H- 1027 (1977) and DM-3 8 l(l996) to the extent they conflict with this opinion.

add?

Arrests made in accordance with statute by de facto police 05cers an valid. An individual may be a de facto police 05c.q even though he has not taken the oath of 05cc.

https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/48morales/op/1996/pdf/dm0381.pdf

We therefore overrule Attorney General Opinions H- 1027 (1977) and DM-3 8 l(l996) to the extent they conflict with this opinion.

https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2005/pdf/ga0365.pdf

question

According to the Office of the Texas Governor website about the Form for Statement Officer year 2017 (revised 09/2017), Form 2201 - Statement of Officer (texas.gov) County Court of Law Judges must file with the Elections Division of the Texas Secretary of State the Statement Officer and subsequently the sworn oath office affidavit notarized.

Also, according to Texas Government Code for Statutory Judges, visiting and retired judges must file the Statement Officer and Sworn Oath Office with the Presiding Administrative Regional Judge and to be assigned for one determined cause proceeding, but the statute is in silence in relation the elected Statutory Judges where they must file their Statements and Oath Office Affidavits.

The Opinion Letters of OAG does not clarify this issue in relation County Court of Law Judges and they have concurrent jurisdiction with District Judges in the same County and County Court of Law Judges are not subordinated from the Commissioners County Court and they receive the payment of salaries from the General Appropriations Act and being paid as middleman from the part of the Local Government County and stipulated the salary from the part of the Commissioners County Court, but the grand part of the source of payment fund is from the State Government and from the General Appropriations Act and like it is paid the District Judges and with stipulation done by the Commissioners County Court.

In the year 2023, the form for commentaries and instructions for Statement Officer of the Texas Secretary of State removed the exception for County Court of Law Judges and to file their Statement Officers and subsequently the Sworn Oath Office Affidavits with the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division, but at the same time there is no definition that County Court of Law Judges are considered "local officials" or "state officials".

The Texas Constitution Article 16, Section 1 requires that ALL elected and Appointed Officers, Officials and Employees must submit the Statement Officer and Sworn Oath Office Affidavit and from the three branches of the Government.

The Texas Administrative Code requires the Statement Officer to be filed with the Texas Secretary of State and from all officers, officials and employees as a statutory document and filed with the Texas Secretary of State.

Also, County Court of Law Judges can temporarily substitute one District Judge and one District Judge can temporarily substitute one District Judge in certain situations and when there is no substitution and for a temporary basis in one determined County.

Concerning the State Funds, basically they receive from the General Appropriations Act and the Local Government County subsides with a parcel as bonus, but the grand part is from the state fund from the General Appropriations Act.

The Texas Secretary of State exempts from filing the Statements Officer and Sworn Oath Office Affidavits from Justice of Peace Judges and Constitutional County Judges and that are paid unique and exclusively from the the part of the Local Government County Treasury and they are subordinated with the Commissioners County Court, as well as, Municipal Judges are employees from the Municipality Government and they are paid by the Municipal GovernmentTreasury and they are subordinated from the Municipal Council (City Council).

Removal of the Office: County Court of Law Judges only can be removed from the Office from the State Judicial District Courts and located in the same County. The Commissioners County Court doesn't have power to remove one County Court of Law Judge, but the Commissioners County Court can select temporarily one County Court of Law Judge and when the position is in vacancy for removal occurs and needs to be replaced temporarily with another County Court of Law Judge until a new election is done.

Basically, the current status of the County Court of Law Judges is actually considered a "hybrid status" and from "state official status" and "local official status", but a large part of the salary is paid from the state fund of the general appropriations act and like it happens with State Judicial District Judges and both category of judges have their salaries stipulated the amounts from the part of the Commissioners County Court of Local Government, as well as, the bonuses that they receive. Both categories of judges have concurrent jurisdiction in the same county territorial boundaries.

See: Texas Government Code for Statutory Judges: Sec. 25.0015: STATE CONTRIBUTION: Beginning on the first day of the state fiscal year, the state shall annually compensate each county in an amount equal to 60 percent of the state base salary paid to a district judge as set by the General Appropriations Act in accordance with Section 659.012(a) for each statutory county court judge ...

Also, the definition for "local" is exclusively restricted for "local", as example: Justice of Peace Judge is a "local Official" and because has territorial jurisdiction for one Precinct in one County territorial boundaries, as well as, the Municipal Judge has territorial jurisdiction only for the municipality territorial jurisdiction boundaries and also know as city limits or urban perimeter of the city limits or municipal limits and that is essentially "local", but County Court of Law embrace all precincts as territorial jurisdiction limits and all municipal jurisdiction territorial limits. Normally, one County territorial jurisdiction limits have more than one Municipal territorial limits and being the County Court at Law one Appeal Court from Justice of Peace Courts and from all Precincts existent in the County territorial limits.

The Texas Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1 (c) prescribes that Members of the Legislature, the Secretary of State, and all other elected and appointed state officers shall file the signed statement required by Subsection (b) of this section with the Secretary of State before taking the Oath or Affirmation of office prescribed by Subsection (a) of this section. All other officers shall retain the signed statement required by Subsection (b) of this section with the official records of the office. Here is the Opinion Letter of OAG of Texas about the meaning for "state officers" jc0575.pdf (texasattorneygeneral.gov) Opinion No. JC-0575 Re: Meaning of "state officer" for purposes of article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution, which requires such individuals to sign an anti bribery statement (RQ-0555-JC)

Here are some written excerpts of the opinion letter of OAG of Texas:

In a broad sense, all persons holding public office within the state or performing some of its governmental functions are officers of the state. See Jernigan v. Finley, 38 S.W. 24 (Tex. 1896); Exparte Preston, 161 S.W. 115,116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1913). The term "state officer" is, however, generally used in Texas statutes and constitutional provisions to describe a narrower class of officers, those officers whose jurisdiction is coextensive with the boundaries of the state or officers who immediately belong to one of the three branches of state government. See Lane v. McLemore, 169 SW. 1073,1074 (Tex. Civ. App.-Galveston 1914, no writ); see also Travis County v. Jourdan, 42 S.W. 543, 543 (Tex. 1897) (county treasurer is not within statute authorizing Texas Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus against officers of the state government); San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State, 173 S.W. 525, 527-28 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1915, writ ref d) (article XVI, section 30a of the Texas Constitution applies to the terms of office of state board members, and does not apply to terms of school board members).

In our opinion, "state officers" in article XVI, section l (c), refers to officers "whose jurisdiction is coextensive with the state" or "officers [who] immediately belong to one of the three constituent branches of the state government." Lane, 169 S.W. at 1074 (quoting 23 AMERICAN & ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW 327; State v. Hewitt, 52 N.W. 875 (S.D. 1892)); see Tex. Const. art. II, 5 1 (powers of government are divided into the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, and each department is entrusted to a separate body of "magistracy"). Article XVI, section l(c) makes it clear that the term "state officers" does not encompass all persons holding public office within the state, because the provision distinguishes between "state officers" who "shall file the signed statement. . . with the Secretary of State" and "[a]11 other officers," who "shall retain the signed statement . . . with the official records of the office." Tex. Const. art. XVI, 8 l(c).

Application of the rule of ejusdem generis to article XVI, section 1 (c) shows which officers are to file the statement with the secretary of state. See San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., 173 S.W. at 526 (applying rule of ejusdem generis to construe article XVI, section 30a of Texas Constitution, which provides for terms of office); see also Rooms with a View, Inc. v. Private Nat 'I Mortgage Ass'n, 7 S.W.3d 840, 844 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, no pet.) (court uses the same guidelines in interpreting constitutional provisions as it does in interpreting statutes). "Under the rule of ejusdem generis, where specific and particular enumerations of persons or things in a statute are followed by general words, the general words are not to be construed in their widest meaning or extent, but are to be treated as limited and applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those expressly mentioned." Stanford v. Butler, 181 S.W.2d 269,272 (Tex. 1944). Section l(c) of article XVI provides that "[members of the Legislature, the Secretary of State, and all other elected and appointed state officers shall file the signed statement . . . with the Secretary of State." Tex. Const. art. XVI, Section l (c). This section specifically identifies certain state-level officers who must file the written statement with the secretary of state, and, according to the rule of ejusdem generis, the "other elected and appointed state officers" who must file with the secretary are limited to state-level officers. Id.

SUMMARY

Article XVI, section l(b) of the Texas Constitution requires elected and appointed officers to sign an anti-bribery statement before taking the oath or affirmation of office required by article XVI, section l(a). State-level officers, but not local officers, must file the signed statement with the secretary of state. Local officers must sign the statement and retain it with the official records of the office. 

Questions about whether a particular officer is a "state officer" within article XVI, section l(c) may be resolved by consulting relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and judicial decisions...

---

And here is the problem. County Court of Law Judges, Civil County Court at Law Judges, Criminal County Court at Law Judges, Probate County Court at Law Judges, and simply put, Statutory Judges, the relevant statutes, constitutional provisions and judicial decisions are completely silent about this constitutional issue.

If you weight the status of Statutory Judges under the payment of the state funds, then they are "state-level-officers" and because they receive the monthly salaries paid in 60% from the state fund of the General Appropriations Act of the Texas Legislature of the Texas State Government and like it happens with the State Judicial District Judges and that receive their monthly salaries. The Commissioners County Court (Local Government of County) stipulates the amounts to be paid, but the origin of the money is from the state fund in 60% and 40% are from the Local Government of the County, including the bonuses.

Also, the wording "Local" means a particular (distinctive) locality. Justice of Peace Judges have a distinctive locality and called Precinct and that is a particular local government unit, as well as, Municipal Judge for municipal city limits or municipal limits, but County Court at Law has territorial jurisdiction from different distinctive localities in the County territorial jurisdiction and that it contains distinctive precincts as distinctive localities and distinctive municipalities as incorporated city limit areas and also covering unincorporated areas in the same County territorial boundaries.

Basically, the wording "local" is very restrictive and for a distinctive governmental unit locality.

According to the Tarrant County Sheriff Office for Public Integrity and Public Corruption Section, the County Courts at Law are statewide jurisdiction and in cases involving public integrity and public corruption, it falls in the jurisdiction of the statewide public safety department and from the Texas Rangers Division and not from the County Sheriff Department and because County Court at Law Judges are paid in 60% from State Fund and the County Court House Building is considered a statewide jurisdiction building.

County Court at Law Judges cannot suffer impeachment from the County Commissioners Court and they only can be removed from State Judicial District Judges.

Civil, Criminal and Probate County Court at Law Judges are Statutory Judges by the Texas Legislation and the word Statutory means State Laws enacted by the Texas State Legislature.

On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 8:34 AM <admin@texaslegalguide.com> wrote: On 2024-09-13 19:45 > Question: Statutory Civil County Court at Law Judge has been required > to file the Statement Officer and subsequently the Sworn Oath Office > Affidavit with the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division as > required by the Texas Constitution Article 16, Section 1, but almost no > Statutory judge in Texas comply with this requirement of filing > Statements with the Texas Secretary of State, why? The Statutory Judges > are paid by the General Appropriations Act from the State Government, > and they are concurrent jurisdiction with District Judges.

Adriano: They are apparently considered county officers instead of state officers. I would tend to think that is correct. Are you sure that they are paid solely from state funds? Check the state appropriations bill. Also, there may be an Attorney General Opinion on this question.

Subject: The Opinion Letter of OAG of Texas dated on 11/06/2002 about the meaning for "state officers" jc0575.pdf (texasattorneygeneral.gov) (OAG's Opinion No. JC-0575).

Re: The Meaning of "state officer" for purposes of article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution, which requires such individuals to sign an anti bribery statement (OAG: RQ-0555-JC) requested by the then Texas Secretary of State, Honorable Gwyn Shea and addressed to the then Attorney General of Texas, Honorable John Cornyn.

In attention: Ms. Hannah Bell Assistant Criminal District Attorney Tarrant County 401 West Belknap, 9th Floor Fort Worth, Texas 76196

C/o: In attention: Ann Lusas Diamond

Assistant Criminal District Attorney at Civil Division

Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney's Office

Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center

401 West Belknap

Fort Worth, TX 76196

Phone: (817) 884-1400

09/14/2024

Dear Ms. Bell,

It is important to mention that Statutory Judges in Texas (Civil, Criminal and Probate County Court at Law Judges in Texas) receive a State Fund and from the General Appropriations Act in 60% of payment of the monthly salaries and like the Judicial District Judges receive their monthly salaries. Also, for civil jurisdiction proceedings, Statutory Judges have concurrent jurisdiction with District Judges and Statutory Judges are not subordinated with the County Commissioners Court of the Local Government.

Also, concerning the application of the rule of ejusdem generis doctrine to the Texas Constitution, article XVI, section 1(c), it shows which officers are to file the statement with the secretary of state. See: San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., 173 S.W. at 526 (applying rule of ejusdem generis to construe article XVI, section 30a of Texas Constitution, which provides for terms of office).

The Form 23-3 Revised on 09/2023 Statement of Officer (General Information) in commentaries, it mentions certain persons that are considered "local officials" and whose meaning "local" is distinctive meaning and for a particular locality and with restrictive administrative jurisdiction as government unit and mentioning for example the role of the Justice of Peace Judges (Justice Court Judges), the role of the Municipal Judges and the role of the County Judges (as Constitutional County Judges that have mere administrative duties for local government administration of the County Government).

The Form 23-3 Revised on 09/2023 Statement of Officer, it does not mention the words: Civil County Court at Law Judges, Criminal County Court at Law Judges, Probate County Court at Law Judges and all being STATUTORY Judges in Texas, and it is not mentioned in the group of certain persons and classified as "local officials" as created by the Texas Legislative Branch of the State of Texas and whose elected and appointed public judicial officers are allotted in the Judicial Branch of the Texas State Government and receiving 60% of the State Fund to pay their monthly salaries as elected and appointed public judicial officers in Texas and from the General Appropriations Act of the Texas Legislative Fiscal Year.

Also, the Texas Secretary of State has published in the year of 2017 as form revised and dated in September, 2017 (Form 2201) that County Court at Law Judges are an exception and from "local officials" and that County Court at Law Judges must file their Statements Officer with the Elections Division of the Texas Secretary of State and before to take office.

May be, the Texas Secretary of State's perspective interpretation language has been that such class of the Statutory Judges in Texas are paid in 60% by the State Fund of the General Appropriations Act and for this reason they are considered 60% as "state-level-officers" and receiving 60% of the State Fund and to pay their monthly salaries and like it happens with District Judges.

I believe that the Office of Attorney General of Texas should issue a new and update Opinion Letter about the definition for "state-level-officers" and "local-level-officers" and for filing of the Statements Officer and subsequently the Sworn Oath Office Affidavits notarized and to be filed with the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division for elected public officers, officials and employees, and from the Government Filings Section for appointed public officers, officials and employees and occupying one public office in Texas and specially when one determined public officer, official and employee as elected or appointed can be considered one "hybrid state and local level officer" and having a "hybrid statutory administrative functionality as public officer in Texas" and with concurrent jurisdiction with District Judges in Texas and not being subordinated by the Commissioners County Court.

Also, the Texas House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence should clarify this constitutional issue and also the Texas Judicial Council (TJC) as the policy-making body for the state judiciary and that it recommends to the Texas House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence improvements with the actual legislation in the Judicial Branch of the State Government and including for amendments of the Texas Constitution, Texas Government Code, Texas Administrative Code, Statutes, Rules, et cetera.

The elected "hybrid" state and local level judicial officer as Statutory Civil County Court at Law Judge Donald R. Pierson II and sitting at the Tarrant County Statutory Civil County Court at Law Number 1 in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, who receives 60% of his monthly salary from the state fund of the General Appropriations Act (State Government) as 60% "state-level-official" salary paid from the Texas State Public Accounts Comptroller and 40% as "local-level-official" salary and from the Tarrant County Commissioners Court Fiscal Budget County Treasurer (From Local County Government fund); He is not in fact; 100% a "Local Officer" and he is not in fact; 100% a "State Officer", he has been elected and after re-elected as political candidate from the Tarrant County Republican Party and not having at least one opponent political candidate and for more than 20 years in the Primary Elections of the Tarrant County Republican Party and in General Elections in Tarrant County, Texas. In all election seasons that he has participated as the unique and only political candidate as Statutory Civil County Court at Law Judge in Tarrant County, Texas, he has never filed his Statements Officer signed and subsequently the Sworn Oath Office Affidavits signed and notarized with the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division and even in 2018 and when it was effective the revision of the Form 2201 in September, 2017 (Form for Statement Officer) and more known as Anti-Bribery Statement Form, and he did not filed with the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division in the election of 2018 and before to take office.

This "hybrid" state and local level status should be better clarified and for filing Statement Officer and Sworn Oath Office Affidavit purposes with the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Divisions and Government Filings Section for appointed public officers in compliance with the Texas Constitution, Article 16, Section 1.

The conflicting language has been conflicting and due the lack of the clarification about the real status of the Statutory Judges as "state-level-officers" or "local-level-officers" and for filing Statements Officer and Sworn Oath Office Affidavits with the Texas Secretary of State and in consonance with the Texas Constitution, Article 16, Section 1 and before to take office.

Also, according to Tarrant County Sheriff, Public Integrity Department, theTarrant County Sheriff Office and with Public Integrity Department cannot investigate that Judicial Office because it is considered a State Jurisdiction Judicial Office and for this reason is an attribution from the Texas Department of Public Safety at Texas Rangers Section for Public Corruption and Public Integrity Unit.

The Statutory Judge Donald R. Pierson II has created in January 19, 2018, a corruptive scheme in that Statutory Court and to grant awards of the Defendants' Attorneys fees for not Texas attorneys and not even authorized to practice law in temporary basis by the Texas Board of Law Examiners and not being licensed to practice law in Texas by the Texas State Bar of Texas.

The Statutory Donald R. Pierson II (and who is a former real estate attorney in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas) he does not abide with the Texas Laws for admission of the applicants as Pro Hac Vice with the Texas Board of Law Examiners and that is one State Judicial Agency appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas to receive the mandatory non-resident attorney fees and from applicants as Pro Hac Vice and to be eligible to seek participation for admission as Pro hac Vice in a temporary basis in one Texas Proceeding after to have paid the mandatory fee for non-resident attorney to the Texas Board of Law Examiners, and the Statutory Judge Donald R. Pierson II grants motions from delinquent applicants as Pro Hac Vice not authorized to practice law in temporary basis in Texas by the Texas Board of Law Examiners and still awarded Attorneys' Fees and from individuals delinquent and unauthorized to practice law in Texas and being one direct accomplice in one criminal fraudulent concealment scheme of delinquency fees not paid to the Texas Board of Law Examiners and still shielding individuals unauthorized to practice law in Texas and that requested Attorneys' Fees to the Statutory Judge Donald R. Pierson II in one invoice with itemized billing statements filed with the Court Clerk Office and the Statutory Judge granted such Attorneys' Fees awards and from individuals unauthorized to practice law in Texas and participants in one fraudulent concealment scheme at Tarrant County Statutory Civil County Court at Law Number 1 in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas and to receive unlawful Attorneys' Fees in civil cases adjudicated in that said Statutory Court and having the direct corroboration of the Statutory Judge Donald R. Pierson II in the criminal and corrupt fraudulent concealment scheme orquestated in that said Statutory Court located in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.

Also, Complainant requested a list of all donors of financial political contributions and from all the elections that Donald R. Pierson II has been elected and re-elected as the unique and only political candidate to occupy one seat at the Tarrant County Statutory Civil County Court at Law Number 1 in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas as political public judicial office and for one limited period of the time of 4 years as political term (He is there more than 20 years!). However, such a list of the financial donors and for his solitary political campaigns and done every four years as political candidate, he has not released for public information scrutiny and mainly from the private law firms and private practice lawyers as donors of financial contributions to the political candidacy of Donald R. Pierson II in that Statutory Court every four years.

Sincerely,

Adriano K. Budri Citizen