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 15:44, September 7, 2023
, September 7, 2023→23-0656
m (→review) |
m (→23-0656) |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
x Juliff Gardens v. TCEQ, 131 S.W.3d 271 (TCA 2004) | x Juliff Gardens v. TCEQ, 131 S.W.3d 271 (TCA 2004) | ||
_ Diaz v. State, 68 S.W.3d 680 (TCA 2000) | |||
_ Sw. Travis Co. WD v. Austin, 64 S.W.3d 25 (TCA 2000) | _ Sw. Travis Co. WD v. Austin, 64 S.W.3d 25 (TCA 2000) | ||
| Line 12: | Line 14: | ||
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 86: | 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 92: | Line 102: | ||
x Reed v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 177, 59 S.W. 255 (1900) | x Reed v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 177, 59 S.W. 255 (1900) | ||
x Clarke v. Reeves County, 25 Tex.Civ.App. 463 (1901 refd) | |||
_ Central Wharf v. Corpus Christi, 57 S.W. 982 (TCA refd) | |||
x Smith v. Grayson County, 44 S.W. 921 (TCA 1897 refd) | x Smith v. Grayson County, 44 S.W. 921 (TCA 1897 refd) | ||
| Line 144: | Line 158: | ||
==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. 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. | |||
GC 311.005: The following definitions apply unless the statute or context in which the word or phrase is used requires a different definition: ... (3) "Population" means the population shown by the | |||
''most recent federal decennial census''. | |||
GC 311.022: A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless ''expressly'' made retrospective. | |||
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: (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'' .... | |||
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. | |||
If outside impact then classify as largest | |||
If personnel prob.theb 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. | ||
| Line 149: | Line 183: | ||
In other words, is EC 31.050 void on the ground it is a designation rather than a classification. | In other words, is EC 31.050 void on the ground it is a designation rather than a classification. | ||
EC 31.017(a): In a county with a population of more than 4 million (Harris County?), the secretary of state's office may order administrative oversight of a county office administering elections .... | |||
EC 31.017(a): In a county with a population of more than 4 million, the secretary of state's office may order administrative oversight of a county office administering elections .... | |||
EC 31.031(a): The commissioners court of a county with a population of 3.5 million or less by written order may create the position of county elections administrator for the county. | EC 31.031(a): The commissioners court of a county with a population of 3.5 million or less by written order may create the position of county elections administrator for the county. | ||
| Line 158: | Line 190: | ||
EC 31.050: 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. ... | EC 31.050: 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. ... | ||
Having once become operative, the office continues to exist in a county, regardless of the population as shown by any future census, unless the office is abolished as provided in Subdivision 9 of this section. | |||
?? All powers and duties of a [x:the] county elections administrator of a county with a population of more than 3.5 million are transferred to the county tax assessor-collector and county clerk. This happens on official release of federal census showing county has population of more than 3.5 million. ?? | ?? All powers and duties of a [x:the] county elections administrator of a county with a population of more than 3.5 million are transferred to the county tax assessor-collector and county clerk. This happens on official release of federal census showing county has population of more than 3.5 million. ?? | ||
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. | ||