Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 56: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 56 (view source)

Revision as of 09:37, August 22, 2023

2,070 bytes added ,  August 22, 2023
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
This key section generally prohibits the enactment of special or local laws. Approximately two-thirds of state constitution have one or more provisions addressing this matter.
This key section generally prohibits the enactment of special or local laws. Approximately two-thirds of state constitution have one or more provisions addressing this matter.


The primary types of local or special bills authorized by the Texas Constitution are bills: (1) creating or affecting a conservation and reclamation district, a category that includes various kinds of water-related districts and similar special-purpose districts (Section 59, Article XVI); (2) creating or affecting a hospital district (Sections 4 through 11, Article IX); (3) relating to the preservation of game and fish (Section 56(b)(1), Article III); (4) dealing with the courts system, including district courts, county courts, statutory county courts, and municipal courts (Sections 1, 7, 8, and 21, Article V); (5) creating or affecting a road utility district or various water-related districts and similar special-purpose districts (Section 52, Article III); (6) granting aid or a release from the payment of taxes in cases of public calamity (Section 51, Article III; Section 10, Article VIII); (7) creating or relating to the operation of airport authorities (Section 12, Article IX); (8) providing for the consolidation of governmental offices and functions of political subdivisions comprising or located in a county (Section 64, Article III); (9) relating to fence laws (Section 56(b)(2), Article III); (10) relating to stock laws (Section 23, Article XVI); or (11) providing for local road maintenance (Section 9(e), Article VIII).
Such provisions serve a variety of purposes. Two are: (1) preventing the Legislature from usurping local control; and (2) providing more time for the Legislature to address statewide matters.
Such provisions serve a variety of purposes. Two are: (1) preventing the Legislature from usurping local control; and (2) providing more time for the Legislature to address statewide matters.


Line 17: Line 18:
|recent=
|recent=


* ''City of Tyler v. Liberty Utilities Corp.'', 571 S.W.3d 336, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11581812043885385661#p342 342-43] (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (footnotes omitted) ("With respect to the general prohibition against enacting local or special laws, the Supreme Court of Texas has characterized the purpose as 'a wholesome one' that 'is intended to prevent the granting of special privileges and to secure uniformity of law throughout the State as far as possible.' The Court has observed that the historical justification . . . . The prohibition on local or special laws in its current form was introduced in the post-reconstruction Texas Constitution of 1876, and it was amended to add Subsection (b) in 2011.")
* ''City of Tyler v. Liberty Utilities Corp.'', 571 S.W.3d 336, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11581812043885385661#p342 342-43] (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2018) (footnotes omitted) ("With respect to the general prohibition against enacting local or special laws, the Supreme Court of Texas has characterized the purpose as 'a wholesome one' that 'is intended to prevent the granting of special privileges and to secure uniformity of law throughout the State as far as possible.' The Court has observed that the historical . . . . The prohibition on local or special laws in its current form was introduced in the post-reconstruction Texas Constitution of 1876, and it was amended to add Subsection (b) in 2011.")


* ''Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation v. Lewellen'', 952 S.W.2d 454, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14712011369692053572#p465 465] (Tex. 1997) (citations omitted) ("Moreover, the growers contend that, because of the statute's classifications, it is a local or special law in violation of Article III, Section 56 of the Texas Constitution. A local law is limited to a specific geographic region of the State, while a special law is limited to a particular class of persons distinguished by some characteristic other than geography. Legislation does not violate Article III, Section 56, however, as long as there is a reasonable basis for its classifications. As explained above, the Act satisfies this test.")
* ''Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation v. Lewellen'', 952 S.W.2d 454, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14712011369692053572#p465 465] (Tex. 1997) (citations omitted) ("Moreover, the growers contend that, because of the statute's classifications, it is a local or special law in violation of Article III, Section 56 of the Texas Constitution. A local law is limited to a specific geographic region of the State, while a special law is limited to a particular class of persons distinguished by some characteristic other than geography. Legislation does not violate Article III, Section 56, however, as long as there is a reasonable basis for its classifications. As explained above, the Act satisfies this test.")
Line 34: Line 35:


* ''Cameron County v. Wilson'', 326 S.W.2d 162, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2893258599009863966#p167 167] (Tex. 1959) ("Because of the breadth and territorial extent of the State, its varied climatic and economic interests, and the attendant problems of transportation, regulation and general needs incident to a growing and active population, we have been and will again be faced with the need and demand for legislation which affects all the people of the State generally, yet which, in its direct operation will apply to one locality or to a comparatively small number of counties. . . . The scope of such legislation should not be restricted by expanding the nullifying effect of Article 3, § 56 of the Constitution.")
* ''Cameron County v. Wilson'', 326 S.W.2d 162, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2893258599009863966#p167 167] (Tex. 1959) ("Because of the breadth and territorial extent of the State, its varied climatic and economic interests, and the attendant problems of transportation, regulation and general needs incident to a growing and active population, we have been and will again be faced with the need and demand for legislation which affects all the people of the State generally, yet which, in its direct operation will apply to one locality or to a comparatively small number of counties. . . . The scope of such legislation should not be restricted by expanding the nullifying effect of Article 3, § 56 of the Constitution.")
* ''Smith v. Decker'', 312 S.W.2d 632, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17962249283603233454#p635 635-36] (Tex. 1958) (citation omitted) ("However, it has long been held that the use of population brackets alone to direct legislation toward a particular county needing a particular type of legislation will not in itself save the law from being unconstitutional as a special law if the classification bears no reasonable relationship to the objects sought to be accomplished. There appears to be no logical or apparent reason for the exclusion from the Act of counties having cities of 100,000 to 349,999 inhabitants. There must be a substantial reason for the classification such as attempted here, otherwise the Act must fail.")


* ''Rodriguez v. Gonzales'', 227 S.W.2d 791, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18224133104924555465#p793 793] (Tex. 1950) ("The primary purpose back of the adoption of this section was to secure that uniformity in the application of law which is essential to an ordered society. The section is not of doubtful construction, but is a plain mandate from the people to the Legislature. The prohibition is against any 'local or special law.' We are not concerned with any distinctions which may be drawn between a local law and a special law, for in our opinion the Act under review is both a local and a special law within the meaning of the constitutional provision. This is so clear to our minds that we shall not discuss the question at length.")
* ''Rodriguez v. Gonzales'', 227 S.W.2d 791, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18224133104924555465#p793 793] (Tex. 1950) ("The primary purpose back of the adoption of this section was to secure that uniformity in the application of law which is essential to an ordered society. The section is not of doubtful construction, but is a plain mandate from the people to the Legislature. The prohibition is against any 'local or special law.' We are not concerned with any distinctions which may be drawn between a local law and a special law, for in our opinion the Act under review is both a local and a special law within the meaning of the constitutional provision. This is so clear to our minds that we shall not discuss the question at length.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/6517...6528"

Navigation menu