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

2025-06-20T14:28:21Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:28, June 20, 2025
Line 91:		Line 91:
	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 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).		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.		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		SUMMARY

74.194.29.76: /* question */ new section

2024-09-18T13:51:30Z

question: new section

Show changes

Admin: Text replacement - "refd)" to "ref'd)"

2023-09-14T16:22:14Z

Text replacement - "refd)" to "ref'd)"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, September 14, 2023
Line 27:		Line 27:

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

	== add? ==		== add? ==

	Prieto Bail Bonds v. Tex., 994 S.W.2d 3 16,3 18-20 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1999, pet. ~~refd~~)		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		fyi: The Aldine standard is also the appropriate standard by which

47.221.214.154 at 18:06, January 12, 2021

2021-01-12T18:06:08Z

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} 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 ''{{PAGENAME}} 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 refd).

== add? ==

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

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

Texas Constitution talk:Article XVI, Section 1 - Revision history

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

74.194.29.76: /* question */ new section

Admin: Text replacement - "refd)" to "ref'd)"

47.221.214.154 at 18:06, January 12, 2021