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 16:40, September 7, 2023
, September 7, 2023→23-0656
m (→review) |
m (→23-0656) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
x Logan v. State, 54 TCA 74, 111 SW 1028 (1908) | x Logan v. State, 54 TCA 74, 111 SW 1028 (1908) | ||
x Ex parte Dupree, 101 Tex. 150 (1907) | |||
x Green v. State, 49 Tx.C.R. 380, 92 S. W. 847 (1906) | x Green v. State, 49 Tx.C.R. 380, 92 S. W. 847 (1906) | ||
| Line 157: | Line 159: | ||
==23-0656== | ==23-0656== | ||
Old: Under have choice. Execute with vote and order. New: Under have choice but over do not. Transition by operation of law rather than order. Normally prospective so leg made clear retroactive by transition provision re those over 3.5. If administrator exists over 3.5 in violation subject to suit to force compliance with law. Problem is ambiguity re pro/retro re non Harris by second permanent provision. not clear so consult legislative history re application to others than Harris. | "The Act contains two provisions relevant here. First, it provides that '[t]he Commissioners Court of a county with a population of 3.5 million or less, by written order may create the position of a county elections administrator for the county.' 2023 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 952 (S.B. 1750) § 2(a) (emphasis added to reflect the amendment). Second, it provides that 'on September 1, 2023, all powers and duties of the county elections administrator of a county with a population of more than 3.5 million under this subchapter are transferred to the county tax-assessor collector and county clerk.” ''Id''. § 3." | ||
Not closed, it does not limit the transfer solely to Harris County even if other counties reach the same size threshold. | |||
Old: Under have choice. Execute with vote and order. New: Under have choice but over do not. Transition by operation of law rather than order. Normally prospective so leg made clear retroactive by transition provision re those over 3.5. If administrator exists over 3.5 in violation subject to suit to force compliance with law. Problem is ambiguity re pro/retro re non Harris by second permanent provision. not clear so consult legislative history re application to others than Harris. Before every county had auth to switch which necessarily included auth to have. Now over 3.5 cannot switch. Ambiguous whether they retain authority to have. | |||
EC 1.003(a): The Code Construction Act (Chapter 311, Government Code) applies to the construction of each provision in this code, except as otherwise ''expressly'' provided by this code. | EC 1.003(a): The Code Construction Act (Chapter 311, Government Code) applies to the construction of each provision in this code, except as otherwise ''expressly'' provided by this code. | ||
| Line 168: | Line 174: | ||
GC 311.023: In construing a statute, whether or not the statute is considered ambiguous on its face, a court may consider among other matters the: (1) object sought to be attained; (2) circumstances under which the statute was enacted; (3) ''legislative history''; (4) common law or former statutory provisions, including laws on the same or similar subjects; (5) consequences of a particular construction; 6) administrative construction of the statute; and (7) title (caption), preamble, and emergency provision. | GC 311.023: In construing a statute, whether or not the statute is considered ambiguous on its face, a court may consider among other matters the: (1) object sought to be attained; (2) circumstances under which the statute was enacted; (3) ''legislative history''; (4) common law or former statutory provisions, including laws on the same or similar subjects; (5) consequences of a particular construction; 6) administrative construction of the statute; and (7) title (caption), preamble, and emergency provision. | ||
GC 311.031 | GC 311.031(a): [T]he reenactment, revision, amendment, or repeal of a statute does not affect: (1) the prior operation of the statute or ''any prior action taken under it'' .... | ||
GC 311.032(c): In a statute that does not contain a provision for severability or nonseverability, if any provision of the statute or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the statute that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of the statute are severable. | |||
The change in law made by this Act applies only to the creation of the position of county elections administrator on or after the effective date of this Act. The creation of a county elections administrator before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect when the position was created, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. | The change in law made by this Act applies only to the creation of the position of county elections administrator on or after the effective date of this Act. The creation of a county elections administrator before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect when the position was created, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. | ||
At least two reasonable bases exist for treating Harris County differently from the state's other 253 counties for election administration purposes. (1) Its sheer size warrants special consideration, as does its outsized impact on statewide elections. (2) 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. In other words, it is reasonable for the legislature to make a change to the elections administrator in the one county that was experiencing difficulties while leaving the other counties' elections administrators alone. | At least two reasonable bases exist for treating Harris County differently from the state's other 253 counties for election administration purposes. (1) Its sheer size warrants special consideration, as does its outsized impact on statewide elections. (2) 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. In other words, it is reasonable for the legislature to make a change to the elections administrator in the one county that was experiencing difficulties while leaving the other counties' elections administrators alone. | ||
The Act has at least three reasonable bases. First, Harris County's sheer size creates a statewide interest in the proper administration of its elections, which is unlikely to dissipate even if, due to statewide population growth, other large counties eventually reach populations of over 3.5 million. Second, legislators may have believed reports that Harris County's elections administrators poorly managed the County’s 2022 elections. Third, regardless of the veracity of those reports, the Legislature may have been concerned that widespread reporting about poorly managed elections in Harris County caused voters to lose confidence in the integrity of those elections. | |||
If outside impact then classify as largest | If outside impact then classify as largest | ||
If personnel | |||
If personnel problems, then classify by personnel problem | |||
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. | 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. | ||