4,834
edits
Texas Constitution talk:Article III, Section 56: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution talk:Article III, Section 56 (edit)
Revision as of 16:16, September 6, 2023
, September 6, 2023→23-0656
mNo edit summary |
m (→23-0656) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''. | {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''. | ||
== | ==review== | ||
x Juliff Gardens v. TCEQ, 131 S.W.3d 271 (TCA 2004) | x Juliff Gardens v. TCEQ, 131 S.W.3d 271 (TCA 2004) | ||
x FM Properties v. Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (2000) (dissent) | _ Sw. Travis Co. WD v. Austin, 64 S.W.3d 25 (TCA 2000) | ||
x FM Properties v. Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (2000) (!dissent!) | |||
_ Austin v. Cedar Park, 953 S.W.2d 424 (TCA 1997) | |||
x Scurlock P. v. Brazos Co., 869 S.W.2d 478 (TCA 1993 denied) | x Scurlock P. v. Brazos Co., 869 S.W.2d 478 (TCA 1993 denied) | ||
_ Morris v. San Antonio, 572 S.W.2d 831 (TCA 1978) | |||
x Suburban Ut. Co. v. State, 553 S.W.2d 396 (TCA 1977 nre) | x Suburban Ut. Co. v. State, 553 S.W.2d 396 (TCA 1977 nre) | ||
_ Culberson County v. Holmes, 513 S.W.2d 126 (TCA 1974) | |||
x Inman v. Rr Comm., 478 S.W.2d 124 (TCA 1972 nre) | x Inman v. Rr Comm., 478 S.W.2d 124 (TCA 1972 nre) | ||
_ Creps v. Firemen's Fund, 456 S.W.2d 434 (TCA nre) | |||
x Gould v. El Paso, 440 S.W.2d 696 (TCA 1969 nre) | x Gould v. El Paso, 440 S.W.2d 696 (TCA 1969 nre) | ||
| Line 82: | Line 92: | ||
x Logan v. State, 54 TCA 74, 111 SW 1028 (1908) | x Logan v. State, 54 TCA 74, 111 SW 1028 (1908) | ||
x Green v. State, 49 Tx.C.R. 380, 92 S. W. 847 (1906) | |||
x State v. Brownson, 94 Tex. 436, 61 S.W. 114 (1901) (schools) | x State v. Brownson, 94 Tex. 436, 61 S.W. 114 (1901) (schools) | ||
| Line 137: | Line 149: | ||
x Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342 (1853) (purpose) | x Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342 (1853) (purpose) | ||
== | ==23-0656== | ||
At least two reasonable bases exist for treating Harris County differently from the state's other 253 counties for election administration purposes. (1) It is the largest county in Texas with a larger population than 26 states. Its sheer size warrants special consideration, as does its outsized impact on statewide elections. 92) Its Commissioners Court changed the election administration system for the 2022 election cycle, created new problems that made national news, created local controversy and led to numerous election contests. Solving its specific issues is a reasonable basis. | |||
Is EC 31.050 void on the ground that it is not prospective in its application and does not apply to other counties of the same class thereafter coming within the terms of its population classification. | |||
In other words, is EC 31.050 void on the ground it is a designation rather than a classification. | |||
GC 311.022: A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless expressly made retrospective. | GC 311.022: A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless expressly made retrospective. | ||
| Line 152: | Line 170: | ||
Construe entire EC: change to administrator is not one way. in other words, cc can move duties back to county clerk and tax assessor-collector. EC 31.060 only prospective? Then determine effect of disputed 2023 amendment. | Construe entire EC: change to administrator is not one way. in other words, cc can move duties back to county clerk and tax assessor-collector. EC 31.060 only prospective? Then determine effect of disputed 2023 amendment. | ||
The Legislature knew that it would apply to Harris County on September 1, 2023, and then never again, even if some other county with an elections administrator passes the 3.5 million threshold. | |||
Law being made theoretically, not for a day, but for all time, a statute applicable to cities of certain population is a general law when it establishes a rule for the prospective government or regulation of all such cities as may, in the course of time, reach the prescribed population; but where the statute obviously acts only on a present state of facts in such cities and cannot by possibility apply to other cities that may attain, in future, such population, it is local, special and void. | Law being made theoretically, not for a day, but for all time, a statute applicable to cities of certain population is a general law when it establishes a rule for the prospective government or regulation of all such cities as may, in the course of time, reach the prescribed population; but where the statute obviously acts only on a present state of facts in such cities and cannot by possibility apply to other cities that may attain, in future, such population, it is local, special and void. | ||
| Line 182: | Line 202: | ||
wrong: every law is general which operates equally upon all persons and all things upon whom it acts at all; such uniformity may often characterize a local or special law, and this must indeed be the case with every law affecting only a single person or thing | wrong: every law is general which operates equally upon all persons and all things upon whom it acts at all; such uniformity may often characterize a local or special law, and this must indeed be the case with every law affecting only a single person or thing | ||
what makes Harris County unique with regard to the purposes of the disputed section? legislation limited in its relation to particular subdivisions of the State, to be valid, must rest on some characteristic or peculiarity plainly distinguishing the places included from those excluded | |||