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

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

Revision as of 11:32, August 31, 2023

56 bytes removed , August 31, 2023

m

no edit summary

Admin

attorneys, bureaucrats, interface administrators, administrators

4,834

edits

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 This section has been amended once. The 2001 modification was part of a "constitutional cleanup amendment." It made stylistic changes and transferred the substance of Sections [[Texas Constitution:Article XVI, Section 22|22]] and [[Texas Constitution:Article XVI, Section 43|43]] of Article XVI to this section. The local and special laws authorized by other sections, either expressly or by implication, include laws: (1) relating to the court system (Article V, Sections [[Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 1|1]], [[Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 7|7]], [[Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 8|8]], [[Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 21|21]]); (2) creating or affecting a conservation and reclamation district (Article XVI, Section [[Texas Constitution:Article XVI, Section 59|59]]); (3) creating or affecting a road or water district (Article III, Section [[Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 52|52]]); (4) providing for road maintenance (Article VIII, Section [[Texas Constitution:Article VIII, Section 9|9]]); (5) creating or affecting a hospital district (Article IX, Sections [[Texas Constitution:Article IX, Section 4|4]]-[[Texas Constitution:Article IX, Section 11|11]]); (6) creating or affecting an airport authority (Article IX, Section [[Texas Constitution:Article IX, Section 12|12]]); (7) relating to the regulation of stock or stock raisers (Article XVI, Section [[Texas Constitution:Article XVI, Section 23|23]]); (8) granting aid or tax relief in cases of public calamity (Article III, Section [[Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 51|51]], Article VIII, Section [[Texas Constitution:Article VIII, Section 10|10]]); and (9) providing for consolidation of functions of political subdivisions (Article III, Section [[Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 64|64]]).
-At different times, the Governor has vetoed bills because of the belief that the relevant legislation violated this section. More consistently, the Attorney General has determined that certain proposed legislation violated the section. For example, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. [https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1973/jh0008.pdf#page=5 H-8] (1973), he opined that: "We would suggest that, with particular reference to S.B. 13, a court will see that the only city presently falling within the classification is San Antonio and will ask why San Antonio and any other city which may in the future fall within the classification should be treated differently as to its liability for the maintenance of safe bridges. It will ask questions such as: is there any basis for saying that cities of over 600,000 are better able to provide safe bridges and that it is more important in those cities that the bridges be safe than in smaller cities? It will ask why this greater responsibility, for some reason, terminates when the city reaches 800,000 in population? It is our feeling that unless the act recites valid reasons for the classification, there is a strong possibility that a court will hold that the classification in S.B. 13 as presently drawn is not a reasonable one and that the act is a special law and thus unconstitutional under Article 3, Section 56."
+At different times, governors vetoed perceived local or special bills. More consistently, attorney generals determined that proposed bills violated this section. For example, in Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. [https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1973/jh0008.pdf#page=5 H-8] (1973), the Attorney General opined that: "We would suggest that, with particular reference to S.B. 13, a court will see that the only city presently falling within the classification is San Antonio and will ask why San Antonio and any other city which may in the future fall within the classification should be treated differently as to its liability for the maintenance of safe bridges. It will ask questions such as: is there any basis for saying that cities of over 600,000 are better able to provide safe bridges and that it is more important in those cities that the bridges be safe than in smaller cities? It will ask why this greater responsibility, for some reason, terminates when the city reaches 800,000 in population? It is our feeling that unless the act recites valid reasons for the classification, there is a strong possibility that a court will hold that the classification in S.B. 13 as presently drawn is not a reasonable one and that the act is a special law and thus unconstitutional under Article 3, Section 56."
 As reflected by the decisions referenced below, the Texas jurisprudence in this area is within the national mainstream. The governing rule can be summarized as follows: A general law is a statute which relates to persons, places or things as a class, both in the present and in the future, which bona fide class is based upon a real and substantial difference which bears a reasonable relation to the statute's purpose. A special law is an enactment which relates to particular persons, places or things of a class; to a class as it is constituted at a given time without allowance for changes in the future; or to a pretended class which bears no reasonable relation to the purpose of the relevant statute. A local law is a special law in which the places to which it applies are territorial subdivisions of the state. Note that the substance of the foregoing rule is routinely stated in different terms. More importantly, recognize that the rule is sometimes ignored by courts when considered necessary to reach a "fair and just" result.