Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 3 - Revision history

Admin: test

2026-05-01T15:16:15Z

test

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:16, May 1, 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Featured Article]]~~<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>~~{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Equal Rights Provision"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:		[[Category:Featured Article]]{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Equal Rights Provision"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:

	'''All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.'''		'''All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.'''

Admin at 16:23, October 23, 2025

2025-10-23T16:23:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:23, October 23, 2025
Line 65:		Line 65:
	* ''Richards v. LULAC'', 868 S.W.2d 306, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16846469003599294378#p310 310-11] (Tex. 1993) (citations omitted) ("[E]qual protection challenges under the Texas Constitution are reviewed under a multi-tiered system. Generally, we require only that the classification under challenge be rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. The general rule gives way, however, when the classification impinges on the exercise of a fundamental right, or when the classification distinguishes between people, in terms of any right, on a 'suspect' basis such as race or national origin. In those instances, the state action is subjected to strict scrutiny, requiring that the classification be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.")		* ''Richards v. LULAC'', 868 S.W.2d 306, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16846469003599294378#p310 310-11] (Tex. 1993) (citations omitted) ("[E]qual protection challenges under the Texas Constitution are reviewed under a multi-tiered system. Generally, we require only that the classification under challenge be rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. The general rule gives way, however, when the classification impinges on the exercise of a fundamental right, or when the classification distinguishes between people, in terms of any right, on a 'suspect' basis such as race or national origin. In those instances, the state action is subjected to strict scrutiny, requiring that the classification be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.")

	* ''Lucas v. United States'', 757 S.W.2d 687, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9397562048417946578#p703 703] (Tex. 1988) (Phillips, dissenting) ("From a review of our opinions, I believe that Texas courts have traditionally adopted the federal equal protection analysis in interpreting our own equal protection provision. Of course, our courts are free to give independent meaning to similar or even identical state . . . . While the wording of our equal protection clause seems broader than the corresponding provision of the United States Constitution, no decision of a Texas court has ever actually held that this textual distinction makes a difference. On the contrary, both courts and commentators have concluded that the protections are identical.")		* ''Lucas v. United States'', 757 S.W.2d 687, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9397562048417946578#p703 703] (Tex. 1988) (Phillips, dissenting) ("From a review of our opinions, I believe that Texas courts have traditionally adopted the federal equal protection analysis in interpreting our own equal protection provision. Of course, our courts are free to give independent meaning to similar or even identical state constitutional language . . . . While the wording of our equal protection clause seems broader than the corresponding provision of the United States Constitution, no decision of a Texas court has ever actually held that this textual distinction makes a difference. On the contrary, both courts and commentators have concluded that the protections are identical.")

	* ''Vasquez v. State'', 739 S.W.2d 37, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16859953150837009694#p43 43] (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) ("Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution secure to all persons similarly situated equal protection under the laws of this State and the United States. In the absence of a suspect classification, a state law is not repugnant to either constitutional provision so long as unequal treatment of persons is based upon a reasonable and substantial classification of persons. Unequal treatment of persons under a state law which is founded upon unreasonable and unsubstantial classification constitutes discriminating state action and violates both the state and federal constitutions.")		* ''Vasquez v. State'', 739 S.W.2d 37, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16859953150837009694#p43 43] (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) ("Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution secure to all persons similarly situated equal protection under the laws of this State and the United States. In the absence of a suspect classification, a state law is not repugnant to either constitutional provision so long as unequal treatment of persons is based upon a reasonable and substantial classification of persons. Unequal treatment of persons under a state law which is founded upon unreasonable and unsubstantial classification constitutes discriminating state action and violates both the state and federal constitutions.")

Admin at 15:36, October 23, 2025

2025-10-23T15:36:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:36, October 23, 2025
Line 65:		Line 65:
	* ''Richards v. LULAC'', 868 S.W.2d 306, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16846469003599294378#p310 310-11] (Tex. 1993) (citations omitted) ("[E]qual protection challenges under the Texas Constitution are reviewed under a multi-tiered system. Generally, we require only that the classification under challenge be rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. The general rule gives way, however, when the classification impinges on the exercise of a fundamental right, or when the classification distinguishes between people, in terms of any right, on a 'suspect' basis such as race or national origin. In those instances, the state action is subjected to strict scrutiny, requiring that the classification be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.")		* ''Richards v. LULAC'', 868 S.W.2d 306, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16846469003599294378#p310 310-11] (Tex. 1993) (citations omitted) ("[E]qual protection challenges under the Texas Constitution are reviewed under a multi-tiered system. Generally, we require only that the classification under challenge be rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. The general rule gives way, however, when the classification impinges on the exercise of a fundamental right, or when the classification distinguishes between people, in terms of any right, on a 'suspect' basis such as race or national origin. In those instances, the state action is subjected to strict scrutiny, requiring that the classification be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.")

	* ''Lucas v. United States'', 757 S.W.2d 687, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9397562048417946578#p703 703] (Tex. 1988) (~~C.J.~~ Phillips, dissenting) ("From a review of our opinions, I believe that Texas courts have traditionally adopted the federal equal protection analysis in interpreting our own equal protection provision. Of course, our courts are free to give independent meaning to similar or even identical state . . . . While the wording of our equal protection clause seems broader than the corresponding provision of the United States Constitution, no decision of a Texas court has ever actually held that this textual distinction makes a difference. On the contrary, both courts and commentators have concluded that the protections are identical.")		* ''Lucas v. United States'', 757 S.W.2d 687, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9397562048417946578#p703 703] (Tex. 1988) (Phillips, dissenting) ("From a review of our opinions, I believe that Texas courts have traditionally adopted the federal equal protection analysis in interpreting our own equal protection provision. Of course, our courts are free to give independent meaning to similar or even identical state . . . . While the wording of our equal protection clause seems broader than the corresponding provision of the United States Constitution, no decision of a Texas court has ever actually held that this textual distinction makes a difference. On the contrary, both courts and commentators have concluded that the protections are identical.")

	* ''Vasquez v. State'', 739 S.W.2d 37, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16859953150837009694#p43 43] (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) ("Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution secure to all persons similarly situated equal protection under the laws of this State and the United States. In the absence of a suspect classification, a state law is not repugnant to either constitutional provision so long as unequal treatment of persons is based upon a reasonable and substantial classification of persons. Unequal treatment of persons under a state law which is founded upon unreasonable and unsubstantial classification constitutes discriminating state action and violates both the state and federal constitutions.")		* ''Vasquez v. State'', 739 S.W.2d 37, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16859953150837009694#p43 43] (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) ("Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution secure to all persons similarly situated equal protection under the laws of this State and the United States. In the absence of a suspect classification, a state law is not repugnant to either constitutional provision so long as unequal treatment of persons is based upon a reasonable and substantial classification of persons. Unequal treatment of persons under a state law which is founded upon unreasonable and unsubstantial classification constitutes discriminating state action and violates both the state and federal constitutions.")

Admin: Undo revision 8959 by Admin (talk)

2025-10-23T15:29:54Z

Undo revision 8959 by Admin (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, October 23, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Featured Article]]<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Equal Rights Provision"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:		[[Category:Featured Article]]<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Equal Rights Provision"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:

	All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.		'''All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.'''

	\|editor=		\|editor=

Admin at 15:29, October 23, 2025

2025-10-23T15:29:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, October 23, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Featured Article]]<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Equal Rights Provision"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:		[[Category:Featured Article]]<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Equal Rights Provision"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:

	~~'''~~All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.~~'''~~		All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.

	\|editor=		\|editor=

Admin at 16:40, June 25, 2025

2025-06-25T16:40:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:40, June 25, 2025
Line 102:		Line 102:

	\|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, equal protection clause, 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

Admin at 14:41, June 20, 2025

2025-06-20T14:41:58Z

Admin: Text replacement - "TEX. CONST." to "Tex. Const."

2025-06-20T14:28:09Z

Text replacement - "TEX. CONST." to "Tex. Const."

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:28, June 20, 2025
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. 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.').")		* ''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.")

Admin at 14:56, June 19, 2025

2025-06-19T14:56:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:56, June 19, 2025
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 102:		Line 102:

	\|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 ~~rights provision~~, Texas equal ~~protection clause~~		\|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

Admin at 14:45, June 19, 2025

2025-06-19T14:45:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, June 19, 2025
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~~, and no man,~~ . . . ' 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).")

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:41, June 20, 2025
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 ~~routinely~~ 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.").		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. ~~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.').")		* ''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