Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

.
The Attorney General of Texas
Declmber 2. 1985
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building Honorable Mike Dr:Lscoll Opinion No. .JM-387
P. 0. BOX 12548 Harris County Attorney
Austin, TX. 78711. 2548 1001 Preston, Suixe 634 Re: Constitutionality of House Bill
51214752501
Houston, Texas "7002 No. 2370, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch.
Telex 910/874-1387
Teleconler 512/475G?SS
568, at 4427. which applies to
counties and areas of counties out-
side the boundaries of cities of 1.5
714 Jackson, Suite 7W million or more residents
Dallas, TX. 75202-4508
2141742-9944
Dear Mr. Driscoll:
4924 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 You have inquired whether chapter 568 of the Sixty-ninth Legisla-
El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 ture, Acts 1985, 6'9thLeg., ch. 568, at 4427, which enacted article
9151533-3484 974a-3, V.T.C.S., violates article III. section 35 of the Texas
Constitution. Thlttsection provides es follows:
1001 Texas. Suite 700
Houston, TX. 77002-3111 No bill, (except general appropriation bills,
713l2255896 which 'my embrace the various subjects and
accountlr,for and on account of which moneys are
appropriated) shall contain more than ona subject,
808 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock. TX. 79401-3479
which shall be expressed in its title. But if any
9081747-5238 subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall
not be expressed in the title, such act shall be
void oa:Ly as to so much thereof, as shall not be
4909 N. Tenth, Suite S
so expmssed.
,&Allen, TX. 78501~1895
512h382.4547
Tex. Const. art. 1'11,$35. The Interpretive Comencary fo!lowlng the
above quoted provxioa states, in part, as follows:
200 Main Plaza. Suite 400
San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797
5121225.4191
The 'pnpose of the title-subject provision is
threefold: First, it is designed to prevent
log-rol!.ing legislation, i.e., to prevent the
A” Equal OPPOrtUnitYi writing of several subjectshaving no connection
Affirmative Actlon EmPlOW with each other in one bill for the purpose of
combining various interests in support of the
whole. --Second, it prevents surprise or fraud upon
legislators by means of provisions in bills of
which thme titles give no intimation, and which
might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and
unintent:icmally adopted. w, it permits the
people ‘to be fairly apprised of the subjects of
legislation under consideration, so that they may
p. 1771
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 2 (JM-387)
have an opportunity of being heard, if they so
desire.
Tax. Coast. art. III, $35, interp. commentary (Vernon 1984).
While it is well-settled that "the quoted provision . . , is
mandatory ," Sutherland v. Board of Trustees of Bishop Independent
School District, 261 S.W. 1J9. 490 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1924,
writ ref'd),
[i]t is also wall settled that the caption of an
act should be lS,erally construed so aa to uphold
its validity if att:
all possible. Gulf Ins. Co. v.
Jamas (supsa); :$e v. State, 163 Tax. 89, 352
S.W.2d 724 (19621. It has also been held that,
'none of ths pr&isions of a statute should b;
regarded as uncmstitutional where they relate,
directly or indirectly, to the same subject, have
mutual connecticn, and are cot foreign to the
subject.expressed in the title.' Stone V. Brown,
54 Tex. 330.
C. Hayman Construction CcEpany v. American Indemnity Conpan& 471
S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tax. 19711.
The title of the questioned enactment reads as follows:
relating to the tubmission and approval of certain
development plattlin cities of 1,500,OOO residents
or more; providirtS;
a penalty.
V.T.C.S. art. 974a-3, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 568, at 4427 (title to
H.B. No. 2370). You challnlge this title's adequacy because it "does
not refer to cities' extraterritorial jurisdiction. . . .II The text
of the statute does refer XC cities' extraterritorial jurisdiction.
00 the basis of the at.thoritiescited above, we conclude that the
subject of chapter 568 is adequately expressed vithin its title. The
title does not, as you seem to suggest, restrict its applicability to
the limits of a city's nornal governance, but rather merely describes
the subject as being the :iilingof plats 2 certain cities. Hence,
the title's sufficiency is not defeated by the maxim that mention of
one thing excludes another which caused the invalidation of the act at
issue in Sutherland, wb Since extraterritorial jurisdiction is
inextricably related to plztting of subdivisions in cities, see, e.g.,
V.T.C.S. arts. 970a, 974a, the title of chapter 568 is covered by the
following standard as statc:din the Hayman case:
Our courts have upheld the validity of statutes
which state in general terms a subject within the
body of the act which is germane to the general
p. 1772
Honorable Mike Driscoll - :?sge3 (JM-387)
subject stated in the title of the act. Doeppen-
schmidt V. I. & G. N. R. Co., 100 Tsx. 532, 101
S.W. 1080 (190iT; Consolidated Underwriters v.
Kirby Lumber Co::, Tex. Corn. App., 267 S.W. 703
(opinion adopted 1943); Central Education Agency
V. Ind. School Dist. of El Paso, 152 Tsx. 56, 254
S.W.2d 357 (1953.r.
C. Hayman Construction Ctmlpany V. American Indemnity Company, 471
S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex. 1971:1..
SUMMARY
The title of chapter 568, Acts 1985, 69th Leg.;
ch. 568, is not violative of section 35 of article
III of the Texas Constitution.
L-l
Very truly your ,
4 ikJx&
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attonwy General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Comittw
Prepared by Colin J. Carl
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
Sarah Woelk
p. 1773