Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1957 )


Menu:
  • Honorable Penn J., Jackson                 Opinion No. WW-324
    Chairman, State Board of Insurance
    Austin, Texas                             Re: Questions concern-
    ing the constltu-
    tlonallty  of con-
    firmation by the
    Senate of the State
    of Texas of the
    appointment of the
    Commissioner of In-
    surance by the State
    Dear Judge Jackson:                           Board of Insuranoe.
    You have requested   an opinion   on the folldwlng
    questions:
    1.   Is the appointment of a Commissioner
    of Insurance by the State Board of Insurance
    subject to “the advice and consent of the Senate
    of Texas”, or ls’such    a provision  calling  for
    confirmation   by the Senate unconstitutional?
    2. Assuming that confirmation  by the Senate
    Is valid, Is a simple majority vote of the members
    of the Senate present and voting sufficient   for con-
    firmation of the Commissioner of Insurance, and,
    If not, what percentage of vote Is necessary?
    3. Assumln& that In the above two questions
    It Is held that confirmation   by the Senate Is
    necessary and that the appointee has not received
    the requisite  number of votes as determined In
    your second answer, thereby causing the rejection
    of the appointment, may the appointee hold offloe
    until his successor has been appointed and qualified
    In accordance with Article   XVI, Section 17, of
    the Texas Constitution?
    May I state at the beginning that the above
    questions that you have requested an opinion on are questions
    of first ,lmpresslon‘and   have never been passed on or determln-
    ed by a Texas Court.     Furthermore, there are few Texas cases
    which have dealt either directly     or indirectly with the
    -
    Hon. Penn J. Jackson,      Page 2 (WW-324)
    subject that you have presented for          consideration.   ‘With
    this statement In mind and In reply          to your request,   I
    submit the following information:
    Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution              Of
    the State of Texas provides that:
    “The powers of the government of the State
    of Texas shall be divided Into three dlstlnet
    department 8, each of which shall be confided to
    a separate body of maglstraoW, to wit:      Those
    which are legislative    to one, those which are
    executive to another, and those which are __
    judicial   to another; and no person, or colleo-
    tion of persons,    being of one of theee depart-
    ments, ahall exercise    any power properly attaohed
    to either of the others,    except in the instances
    herein expressly permitted. ” (emphasis addea)
    The above Artlole      Is oommonly referred      to as
    the dlstributlng       of power clause of the Texas Constitution.
    It expresses the fundamental principle             of American and Texas
    government, the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.                By ex-
    press words the Article        divides and distributes        the powers
    of the Texas government Into three distinct             departments:
    the legislative,       executive,    and judicial.     Article   II further
    expresses this principle          when it states that “no person or
    collection     of persons, being of one of these departmente,
    shall exercise      any  power properly attached to either of the
    _ _
    others,    exoept   In  the  lns%an118 Tex. 449
    , 16 S.V.2d       609. The
    Surmeme Court                      so de8lared that the confinutldn
    or-rejection     of appointees to ublio office       lo an executive ‘0,.
    runotion.      Walker v. Baker, 19g S.W.2d 324. While there w
    be lnstanoee In uhloh the powers of appointment and oonfirma-
    tion are properly exercisable       by the le~l~latlve     braaoh as an
    adjunct to Its legislative       power, we think It is olear that
    the power to confirm or reject       the appointment of offioer8
    attached to some other branch of government Is executive              in
    nature and Is a non-legislative        power.   Therefore,     In order
    for the Legislature      to confer this non-legislative        power upon
    the Texas Senate, there must be some provlalon           in the Conatltu-
    tion whIoh expressly permits such delegation           of power.
    Article   IV, Seotlon   12, of the Tex6s Conrtltntlon
    provideo:
    “All vaoanolee    In State or distriot    offioer,
    except memberr of the Legislature,      rhall be Tilled,
    unless otherwise provided by law, by appointamt
    or the Governor, whioh appointment, if mad6 ~duriag,
    itn seasion,   6hall:.be with the advice and conrmt
    0r two thirds 0r the Senate present.         xi tide during
    the reoeaa of the SeMte, the said appointee,           or
    .
    Hon. Penn J. Jackson,       Page 4 (G-324)
    some other person to fill. such vacancy., shall,               ,, ,.,,,
    be nominated to the Sbna$e~du?lng, thg. first        : .; ‘,
    ten days~,of its ‘seMion.      If rqj+ted,     said
    office   shall Immediately become vacant, and the,,,
    Governor shall, without delay, make ~furthernom-               ”
    lnatlons until a confirmation       takes place.     But
    should there be no confirmation       during the session
    of the Senate; the Governor shall not, ther,eafter
    appoint any,person to fQl        such vacancy who has
    been rejected,by    the Senate, but may appoint some
    other’person   to fill, the vacancy until the next
    sessldn of the Senate or until the regular elec-
    tion to said office,     should It sooner occur.
    Appointments to vacancies In offices        elective
    by the people shall only continue until the first
    general election    thereafter.”
    The above, Article  expressly places, the executive
    function of appqlntlng State and district       offlaes  ‘in, the
    Governor,, unless oth,erwlse provided by law. The Article,         ,,
    by granting to the Senate the power to confiIln or reject
    appointments when made by the Governor, has also provided
    that the executive power of appointing such dfflclals          shall
    be shared with the Senate.      This grant of a non-leglslatlve
    power to the Senat,6,‘ls an instance’ln     which one department
    of the governmer$.exerclses     a power that 1s “properly
    attadhed” to anoth’er ‘department.       Such exercise  of a non-
    leglslatl~~   power by the Senate 18.&n instance that IS
    “expressly   permlt$ed” by the Texas “Constitution.       It Is to
    be not&d, however, that the appointment In queetion id not
    one made by the Governor , ,nhlch, the Cbnstltutlon     expm
    permits the Senate to conflim,      but the appointment in
    question is one that Is made by.the Texas Insurance Board,
    an administrative    agency.   Article   IV, Section 12, does not
    expressly grant aut~horlty to the Senate to ,,conflrm an appolnt-
    ment made by a source other than the Governor unless the
    phrase in Article    IV, Section’ 12, “unless otherwise ,$ro-
    vlded by law” can be held $6 grant to the Senate such ex-
    press authority.
    Examining the wording of Article     IV, Section 12,
    It Is noted that Article     IV, Section 12, reads “which appolnt-
    ment .      shall be with the advice and consent of two-thirds
    of the’ Sinate present. ” The use of the words “which appoint-
    ment” has a definite     meaning.   It Is a well-knoom,rule   both-
    of statutory   construotlon   and’of English grammar that the
    use of such, words 8,s “which,“’ ~suqh,,” etc.#: in connection
    with a subject,   refers dlrec,tly back,to’the    immediately pre-
    ceding subject matter.      Pet%tileum Casualty Company v.
    Hon. Penn J. Jabkson,     Page 5 (VW-3241
    nllliams,     
    15 S.W.2d 553
    ; State v. Hou8tOn 011 COmpiny,          .“_
    194   s . w . 422;
    39 Tex.Jur. 193.     The lmmedlately pr&Oediiig
    s6bject matter in this Article    Is the “appolntmbmt of the-
    Governor. ”    Therefore,  It Is reasonable to hold that the
    phrase “shall be with the advice and oonsent of the Senate”
    refers only to appointments made by the Clovernor.      In the
    case of Denleon v. State, 61 S.W.&d 1017, error refuead,
    
    61 S.W.2d 1022
    , the court stated that Seotlon 12 of~lhhiole
    IV of the Constitution .is plain,    alear, unamblguoulr, and
    oapable of but one construction     and that the clause “unless
    otherwise provided by law” refers to the nominating aathorlty
    and has non reference~to   the advloe and oons$nt of two-hhlrdr-
    of the S%ate present.       The oourt said:
    “We think the language of seotlon 12,
    art. &,,of the Constitution         Is plain, clear,
    unambiguous, and capable of btit one oonstruo-
    Mon.      That the olause ‘unless otherrolse pro-
    vided by law’ refers to the nominating authority,
    and ha8 no reference       to ‘the advloe and consent
    of two-thirds      of the senate present.1     Thlfa lan-
    guage clearly      contemplates that the Legislature
    may, ehould It see fit,        provide by law for the
    filling    of offices    oreated by It otherwise than
    by appointment by the Oovernor, and that In suoh
    event confirmation       by the Senate Is not esBentlal.lt
    It Is, therefore,  our opinion that the phrase
    “unless otherwise provided by law’ does not grant to the
    Legislature   a right to confer upon the Senate the non-leglr-
    latlve power of confirming an appointment made by a Bouroe
    other than the Governor.
    Upon further examination of the Constitution     we
    find that there IB no general provision    uhloh expressly
    permits the Senate to confirm appolntmente to a pub110 offloe
    made by a souroe other than the @overnor.      On the contrary,
    In Instances where the Senate has been granted the authority
    to confirm or reject appointmenta made by a souroe other than
    the Governor, eubh authority has been sp~olfloally     and ex-
    pressly granted In the Constitution.    ?iB one .exBmple, oonrrlder
    the movislons   for the Board of Pardons and Paroles whloh is
    a8 fiiiOWB1
    1,
    . .  . One member of said board shall be
    appointed by the Governor, one member by the
    Chief Justice   of the,SuFeme Court of the St&e
    of Texas and one member by the presiding   Justioe
    of the Court of C,rlmlnal Appeals; the appointments
    .    .   .
    Hon. Penn J. Jackson,           Page 6 (W-32$,)
    of all members of said board shall be made
    with the advlc,e and consent of two thirds
    of the Senate present.”    (Article IV,
    Section 11, Board of Pardons and Paroles)
    The above Article,   by apelUng out the power of
    the Senate to confirm appointments made by a souroe other
    than the Governor, seems to bear out the fact that the
    framers of the Constitution   recognized  and followed the
    principle  stated In Article  II, Section 1, that no depart-
    ment shall exercise powers that are properly attached to
    another department unless the Constitution    expressly per-
    mits such exercise  of power.
    Therefore,   beoause the confirmation   and rejection
    of the appointment of the Insuranoe CommlBsloner le a non-
    legislative      power, and al:ch grant of power to the Senate Is
    not expressly permitted by the Constitution          of Texas, the
    conferring      to the Senate of this power by Article     1.09,
    Seotlon (a), of the Insurance Code la In violation          of
    Article     II, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution      and Is
    therefore      unconstitutional.
    Because we are of the opinion that confirmation of
    the appointment of the Insurance Commissioner by the Senate
    IB unconstitutional,  there Is no necessity  to answer the
    seoond and third questions of your request.
    SUMMARY
    The provision   of Article   1.09, Section (a),
    of the Insurance Code which provides that the
    appointment of the Insurance Commissioner by the
    Insurance Board shall be confirmed by the Senate
    Is In violation    of Article   II, Section 1, of the
    Constitution    of Texas and Is therefore   unoonstltu-
    tional .
    APPROVED:                                 Yours very truly,
    OPINIOI?CObMIlTREr                        WILL WILSON,
    Geo. P. Blaokburn, Chairman               Attorney General of Texan
    John Webster
    C. K. Rlahards
    Mary K. Wall                   By &d&A
    Rlohard B. Stone
    Fi&VIEWED
    FOR THE ATTORNEY GYNEKAL  Adsistant
    :   Wm. V, Geppert
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WW-324

Judges: Will Wilson

Filed Date: 7/2/1957

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017