Spears v. Davis

complains he is unable Relator payments, therefore he

to make the to do custody for failure

cannot be held facts accom

so. is no statement of There judge

panying this record. The trial impliedly

his relator was order found that payments. In the

able absence to make presume facts,

of a must statement we supported judge’s finding was

that the trial City of Galves in the record. evidence Hill,

tion 151 Tex. 246 S.W.2d v. wife, parte Tex.

(1952); Wagner Ex

Sup., 368 S.W.2d 185-189 custody of

Relator remanded to the County, Sheriff of Harris Texas.

SMITH, J., notes his dissent. SPEARS, Relator,

Franklin

v. DAVIS,

Will D. Chairman of the State Demo Committee, Respondent. cratic Executive

Galloway CALHOUN, Jr., Relator, DAVIS,

Will D. Chairman of the State Demo Committee, Respondent. cratic Executive A-11215,

Nos. A-1

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan.

NORVELL, Justice.

Relators, Spears Galloway Franklin Calhoun, Jr., Senators, presently State have separate petitions original filed for writs ordering Davis, of mandamus Will D. Chairman of the Democratic State Execu- Committee, place upon tive their names primary ballot for as candidates Democratic nomination for the office of 1735a, General of Texas. Article Ann.Tex.Stats., Appellate Vernon’s Pro- cedure While 1.4[1]. argued separate- causes were and submitted ly, they may disposed opin- be one ion. We will hereinafter note some factual positions distinctions to the two relators. provides

The Texas Election Code that: person ineligible “No to hold office placed shall ever have his upon name the ballot general special at or at, election, or any primary election where candidates are selected under primary State; laws of this no such ineligible candidate shall ever be upon, voted nor have votes counted for him any general, at special, such primary 1.05, election.” Article Ver- Code; non’s Texas Election Purcell Lindsey, 158 Tex. 314 S.W.2d Upon presentation applications place upon ballot, primary a 13.12, Code, Election it Vernon’s Texas duty Chairman of becomes of the State committee, regardless party executive prospective of the wishes of candidates or candidates, to ascertain sure that and make filing applications are, those if nom- inated, eligible go general election ballot. A failure could result in so do Cofer, Hearne, Austin, Cofer & Wil- party’s primary being nominee declared Garwood, Austin, liam L. relator ineligible after primary and before Spears. election; or, question if were election, raised after the a success- Austin, Clark, Moody, Jr., Dan E. John party might precluded ful nominee for relator Calhoun. qualifying assuming the duties Sealy, Midland, Kilgore, Tom M. Ar- ineligibility. because of such Joe Austin, respondent. 1.06, ticle Texas Election Code. Vernon’s Ann.St., Constitution, Spears Vernon’s eligibility of both Senator provides to hold the office Senator Calhoun for the two shall, Representative “No Senator January having been during he the term for which questioned, respondent refused to Davis elected, any civil office accept applications place upon their for a State, profit which shall of under this primary the Democratic elec- ballot for the created, emoluments have been or the 7,May filing tion to be held on The 1966. dur- may of which have been increased of these actions causes followed. 1 * * ing term, such being mold, adversary cast in an able coun- appeared sel vigorous, for both sides and At the election to be held on No- well-prepared helpful arguments were 8, 1966, qualified vember voters of presented relating question to the of eli- an will choose gibility. 1, January term of office on 4, 22, 1967. Article 2 and Texas Con- §§ It is conceded that both relators are le- stitution, 17, gally qualified to Article Ann.Tex. hold the office of Vernon’s Attor- ney parte Sanders, 248, 215 General of Texas Stats. Ex and have taken all 147 Tex. required Daniels, entitling actions place them S.W.2d 325 Kothmann to a upon the primary 397 they (Tex.Civ.App., Original ballot unless are S.W.2d 940 ineligible by rendered 3, Proceeding Mandamus, Article 1965).2 18 of the § provision appears provision 1. The Texas constitutional is sim It also that a similar ilar to that contained in the Constitution was contained in the 1827 Constitution of the United States which was no doubt Mexican state of Coahuila and Tex- provided consulted as a model the framers of as. It there in Article 45 of Republic the Constitution of the First section Texas. that: 1, 6, par. “During Article 2 § of the Constitution time service only (members ap Congress), of the United States relates reckoned for pointments object provides to civil this offices and of their elec- tion, they that: can no obtain office of Representative shall, executive, “No Senator or vision of the either them- during selves, request another, the Time for which he was or it for elect- not even ed, appointed any promotion, except by be civil Office un- the scale in their Authority States, respective der the 1 United career.” Laws Gammel’s created, Texas, which shall have been or the 428. 1, Emoluments whereof shall Article 23 of the Constitution of § have been en- during time; provided Republic creased such and no Per- of Texas that:' holding any person holding profit son States, Office “No under the United an offiee of government eligible shall be a Member of under the shall be either during congress, House his to a seat in either house of Continuance Of- any fice.” nor shall eligible member of either house be appears any may preliminary (be) It one of the office which profits drafts of the Constitution created which shall be United States, during this was even increased his term of service.” more stringent Texas, 1 Laws rendered members of Gammel’s 1071. each “ineligible to, incapable House holding any 24 of the Texas Constitu- authority tion 1845 under States, during Representative shall, of the United “No Senator or time they respectively elected; during may which the term for which he elected, any and the members of the Senate shall be civil office of ineligible to, incapable holding profit State, under this which shall created, such office for one have afterwards.” been the emoluments of Report increased, during of the Committee on Detail of Au- have been * n n .” gust 6, Doren, term; 1787. Van The Great Re- 2 Gammel’s hearsal, p. constitutional safe- Laws of guard of Article 6 of the Essay presents of the United States is discussed in 2. Senator Calhoun an alternative No. 56 of the Federalist. contention that should Article Vernon’s 924 Spears

Relator was elected Senator on ineligible by relators would be reason of a November 1962and received a certificate 1965amendment Election Code which to the of election provides November 1962. Relator that a canvass of the returns of an Calhoun was Senator on November election Rep for a member of House of .elected 3, 1964 and received his certificate of elec- resentatives or State would take Senate tion place on November Monday 1964. Because of a on the before the second reapportionment Legislature, Tuesday in January following an the election. entirely Acts, 1965, new Leg., Senate will be p. chosen at 59th ch. Article 8.41, election to be held on Vernon’s It November Election Code. also 8, 1966. Both urged complete relators were members of an election is not until the 59th canvassed; returns which raised the thereof sal- have been ary of the $20,000 parte Sanders, Ex General from Tex. S.W.2d $22,500 per annum, 325 (1948); Griffin, effective with the Leslie v. S.W.2d biennium September beginning 820 (Tex.Comm.App.1930); and 1965. that Gordon, Kirk (Tex.Sup. 376 S.W.2d 560 It is Spears’ contended that Senator term 1964), it was of office indicated that a term of office convening commenced with the of begin would after the canvass of returns Legislature the 58th January on completed. had been and hence the term of State Senator over- dispose We will first of this alternative laps that of Attorney the General for a Kirk reading contention. A of the case dis- period days. of approximately eight A day upon closes the that exact which a similar contention is made with reference of office commencedwas not in issue as the words, to Senator Calhoun. In other it is decision of the on case did not turn whether respondent’s position that State a Senator’s in- commencement of the term of office term commences from the date of the con- day day volved was the of election or vening Regular of the first of Session a upon process which the com- election was Legislature following his election. pleted. respondent’s brief, In original the con- be,

trolling question do not However that we with reference to Senator Spears attribute to intention to an stated as follows: Spears lengthen the terms of either Senator question “The of whether his Senate days, Senator Calhoun some 45 to 60 term conflicts with the term of the At- more, overlap render thus create an

torney General turns on whether the Attorney them ineligible for the of four-year Senate term commenced the General. Article 8.41 The amendment to previous petition- November when operate clearly of the Code intended to was er’s completed election was and certi- prospectively holding over Sen fied, January or on when the period Spears of ators and Calhoun for a petitioner Senate convened and time in the constitutional term of excess of sworn and assumed the office and its provisions office would be virtue emoluments.” of Article of the Texas Constitution 17§ and Article Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Stats. However, by post-submission means of a brief, respondent asserts, alternative, in the It is primary contention that the relators’ that if the process the election is com- term of begins office of on a State Senator pleted, is, canvassing of the election election. order to In returns, be taken as date of parties, evaluate the contentions of it is Senator, the term of office of a State necessary both to examine some detail unconstitutional, construction, Ann.Tex.Stats. be held under this of of the terms then the term of office for Gen fice of the and a State overlap. eral would he from of date election and Senator would not pertinent relating year, congress provisions until shall constitutional otherwise law, vide terms of Senators and shall hold offices offiee both 3 and 4 of one their elec- of the House. Sections the date of members (1876) 3 of tion.” Art. Constitution present Texas, Republic Laws Gammel’s read as follows: shall be “Sec. The Senators Republic Constitu- qualified chosen electors tion to Senators years; term four but new Senate apportion- every after shall chosen shall “The senators be chosen for the ment, elected after and the Senators Monday term of three first apportionment be divided each shall * * * September; At the first into The seats of the lot two classes. congress adoption session of after the shall be va- Senators of the first class constitution, of this senators expiration cated at the of the first two classes, divided lots into three as years, at and those of the second class equal nearly practical; as seats expiration years, four so the senators of the first class shall be one-half the Senators shall chosen year; at vacated the end the first biennially thereafter.” class, the second at the end of the sec- class, year; ond third at end 4. of “Sec. The members the House year, of the in third such a manner that Representatives by be of chosen shall one-third shall chosen each electors, qualified of term 1, 9, thereafter.” Art. 8 and Consti- §§ years day office shall be two from the Republic Texas, tution of of 1 Gam- of their election.” Texas, mel’s Laws of 1070. McKay’s Reports Professor S. S. provided The of Constitution 1845 “Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1875”, comparison of as a of well as repre- “The of members the house of Constitutions, wording of the various Texas quali- sentatives shall be chosen provi- continuity discloses a substantial of electors, fied and their of term office sions which extends from Constitution years day two from the of Republic through 1845 Constitu- * ** general election; 3, Art. (first tion constitution), state the Consti- 5, 1845, Constitution 2 of Gammel’s of 1861 (Confederate), tution Consti- Texas, Laws of (Presidential tution of 1866 Reconstruc- Senators, tion), the 1845Constitution the Constitution (Congres- of 1869 vided that: Reconstruction), sional to the Constitution of 1876. of It seems that the framers “The senators shall be chosen latter Constitution took the Constitution of qualified for electors the term of four (the 1845 Constitution) first State as their years; and shall be divided lot into primary working model and basis. nearly equal two classes as as be. can The seats of the senators of the first of

The constitutional term office class shall be expiration vacated at the Representatives of members the House of of the first years, two and of the second Congress of stated as follows class expiration at the years; of four Republic: in the of Constitution so that one-half thereof shall be chosen repre- biennially 3, 8, “The members of the house of thereafter.” Art. 1845, annually, sentatives shall chosen Constitution of 2 Gammel’s Laws Texas, Monday September the first each 926 provisions the constitutional of the Constitutions of 3

1861, practically by itself, were iden- Senators we would have no and 1869 diffi culty in provisions saying that the usual tical with the of the Constitution senatorial 1845,except years day that the term extended four from the years. Further, terms six election. senatorial this seems 3, inferentially Art. 5 to be the construction accept and Constitution of §§ 6; Supreme Republic Gammel’s Laws 4 ed Art. Court of §§ Bradley McCrabb, Decisions, Constitution of 5 Gammel’s Dallam’s Texas, 860; 8, p. (1843). Laws of Art. 4 and §§ Constitution of Laws of 7 Gammel’s Both distinction between a “term of Texas, 399. office” and an tenure in of- individual’s fice and the date of confusion, In order to avoid a clear office in and statu- case of constitutional distinction must be made between the tory in the well con- silence were discussed phrase, “term of office” and an individual’s People Holdom v. sidered case of ex rel. period desig tenure of office. The of time Sweitzer, 280 Ill. 117 N.E. 625 nated as a term of office not and often Supreme Court of Illinois said: does not coincide with an individual’s ten ure of office. As to members of the House question raised exact “[T]he Representatives, plainly the Constitution is, the terms second contention when do says that “their term of office shall be two judges in the state office of circuit years from the of their election”. This begin time is not A definite end? provision has the same meaning as the 1845 fixed of 1870 the Constitution provision that “their term of office shall be of of- the commencement of the terms two from the elec circuit court of judges fice of Tuesday tion”. The first after the first county Cook or of those who are elect- Monday in November of even numbered state, as ed other circuits of the years day is set as the of the elec and state officers case of other 2.01, tion by Article Vernon’s Texas Elec county of election officers. The date tion Code. by Con- judges of circuit is fixed

stitution, pur- by enacted and the laws The construction of constitu thereto, Monday in suant the first as tional as to the term of office of years. The duration of certain June important in members of House is by of the term is the Constitution fixed way. this relators contend that as six as years. The term of office general rule as to commencement of terms in- fixed used law sometimes is that, is begins “The term of office from terchangeably or time of the term with time, any, law, if fixed no or where of such of- occupancy of the incumbent fixed, day time is on the or the of election fice, in distinctly borne but it must be appointment.” date of 67 Officers as fixed mind that the term office C.J.S. 45, p. authority 199. there is to While from the entirely § is different law contrary,4 agreement we are period is held of time office this if thereof, contention and we were to consider re- sometimes the incumbent grounds, (1949), 3. The 1869 was somewhat 180 affirmed on other 3, anomalous in 4 refers that Article § (1950) Far 12 594 and F.2d Alaska day general election”, to while “the relly Cole, P. 44 v. 60 Kan. 56 day Article ty 6 for four coun- (1899). For a collation of cas L.R.A. 464 See, voting. Rodriguez, Ex Parte seat problem, dealing see Annota es with the (1873). Tex. 39 706 tions, A.L.R. and 135 80 A.L.R. 1290 Respondent Alaska S.S. v. Mul cites Co. laney, F.Supp. 561, 12 Alaska 433 84

927 gubernatorial appointments. rejecting as the rule ferred term. Baker, office, to be that 145 Tex. 196 S.W.2d seems the term of Walker v. pointed Article when not fixed as of its 324 It is out that (1946). to the date Ann.Tex.Stats., provides ending by a Constitution Vernon’s statute, begins of elec the case tive offices the date of election. persons receiving certificates “Those 1398; Cyc. 28 State v. rel. Brown] [ex House of of election to Senate and Constable, 7, pt. 1; 7 Ohio v. Marshall Representatives Legislature, Buckingham, Harwood, 423; Hughes 5 Md. v. office terms those whose Senators *” * * 5 & M. 632. S[medes] terminated, none shall have not others, competent organize also, See State ex v. rel. Moran Wash Representa- Senate House of' burn, Conn.Sup. 316, 19 A.2d 112 897 tives.” (1955). Cf. Taylor Davis ex rel. v. Craw ford, Fla. (1928); 95 116 State So. 41 relating legislative construction or ex Dixon, (Louisiana rel. Sanchez 4 So.2d interpretation, urged clearly it is that it is App ; .1941) State ex Ross v. Car rel. implied in this Article that a term Senator’s roll, 133 Wash. 234 P. 22 begins Legislature before the con- expres- using venes. It is said that However, respondent urges that as sion, “Senators whose terms of office shall specifical the framers of the Constitution terminated”, not it have must be inferred ly provided that the House terms of mem others, that all i. e. those whose terms have bers day “shall two terminated, competent organize are not pro election” and any such omitted Legislature. the two branches terms, they vision to senatorial urged holding It is further that a must have intended that the terms of Sena the terms of Senators and House members tors begin should at some other than time upon begin did not the same date would Respondent election. likewise to countenance a somewhat absurd situa- urges long standing Legis that there is a tion, particularly applied when dis- usage lative or custom that a Senator’s qualification provisions upon begins first the first the Constitution a member Regular Session of the legal House become a could candidate after convened his election. Attorney General, the office while a reply, point In relators the Con- out that days’ overlap Senator reason of a few provides that, stitution Legislative “The in terms could not. power of this State shall in a be vested Representatives, Senate and House are with agree of constrained to We together position. styled Legis- which relators’ ‘The We have searched ”, the through lature of State of Article records of Texas Texas’ such the various Constitution of Constitutional and that there as are available Conventions § any provision, otherwise, is no to us and have been unable find constitutional or to recognizes the as reason was differ State Senate a that advanced governmental way wording unit in relat provision than ence in of the other part integral ing relating as an to Legislature of the of to senatorial terms and that- may of From State Texas. not terms of the The Senate members of the .House. remain in of Legis- Republic itself session that after to adjourned, 'referring lature has even to consider non- the constitutional clause staggered legislative imposed upon provided duties terms it con- senatorial fo'r provision, confirming -phrase stitutional terms it fix- such as that tiie “day Respondent apparently synonymous of election” certification. construes to be date n ‡: ing a senatorial term at many “years pointed so It is out that while Senator Spears after election” was omitted in was elected in November of Senator simpler the interest of November, sentence structure Calhoun was elected provide with no intent to A year a different four term extend of office would day for the years January 1, 1967, commencement of a beyond senatorial almost two from that for the the beginning commence- date of the term of office ment of a House term. chosen at the General election. pointed out, heretofore there is a clear distinction between a “term of- Article 3 of As we construe fice” and an incumbency individual’s in of- Constitution, provide it does not that People Sweitzer, fice. ex rel. Holdom v. shall receive all Senators at all elections 280 Ill. supra. 117 N.E. 625 (1917), years is un four terms. Four full It practice further seems Legis- that the doubtedly office for a the usual term of taking lators the necessary qualifying oath Senator, provision relating State but at the time of the commencement years” term of must be construed “the four Regular Legislature Session part Section 3 relat context with that followed members of the House as well pro apportionment. section ing to This as members of the Senate until 1962 when that, be chosen vides “The Senators shall Legislative upon salary placed was first qualified for the term of electors per an annual rather than a diem At basis. shall be years; but four a new Senate time, that ruled that * * apportionment; chosen after each gen- members of the House elected at the provision new for the election eral election held on November 1962were qualifies the necessarily Senate begin drawing entitled to their salaries as year to a four term. canvassing soon as the of the returns of completed they the election had been require Normal of construction that rules had prescribed taken the oath of office lan- 3 be read as a whole. Its time, Prior it Constitution. context gauge must be considered in full appear does not the exact plain grammatical possible the and where commencement of either a Senator’s or meaning given its No word words. House Member’s term of office was ever empha- group over should be words appears attempt raised. It that no has ever point disregarding other sized to been made Special to convene a Session of appli- phrases in section. words or between the date of the grammatical con- principles of cation of general election the date set for the as requires the word struction “but” Regular commencement of a Session quali- as a considered used in the section be Legislature. deprive These circumstances preced- something stated fication of respondent’s argument much “custom” a con- used as phrase. is not ing The word force. of a the term Sena- refers to junction but four usual qualifies tor and thus Spears is hold that Senator entitled We term. petition prayed the in his filed to relief herein. Cal- The term of office to which Senator 1964, being subject houn elected in to was Calhoun, suggested As to it is Senator ap- provisions relating to the constitutional Spears an though that even Senator is portionment, actually one of two became eligible candidate for the office of Attor- ap- operation because General, necessarily fol- ney it does not portionment is a resident of clause. He County time of his elec- eligible. is also Smith which at the low that Senator Calhoun

929 accomplish part manner as to its objective. tion in of the Seventh However, adequate composed safeguards in District of the Coun- when Senatorial Kaufman, Smith, respect observed, Henderson, appears Camp, that are there ties of 1961, good pro- to be no Upshur, carry Acts reason to this Van Zandt and Wood. 544, beyond Legis- purpose that Leg., p. 57th ch. 256. The 59th vision and make lature, however, Apportionment application adopted unreasoning an an of it where evil, County in the no placed possibility Act which nor of it Smith along injustice District with exists. This would Second Senatorial work Panola, Rusk, Shelby, depriving Gregg, rights Counties of citizens of their basic 1965, Upshur 59th disrupt and Van Zandt. Acts would also tend the or- to p. 342, 193a, Leg., 719, derly processes govern- ch. Article Vernon’s of democratic Ann.Tex.Stats. ment.” It way pub- is in no detrimental to the Calhoun’s term was Senator lic interest .for Legisla- a member of the subject apportionment to and as the “new ture to desire election to office of At- with Senate” to be elected accordance torney past, many In General. apportionment provisions of Con occupants of persons that office were 8, stitution on November 1966 will effec prior legislative service. Under Con- tively terminate term of office States, disquali- stitution of the United elected, we which Calhoun was Senator Congress fication members of to hold an At eligible hold that he is candidate for federal offices posi- was limited to those torney Jan tions were to be filled executive uary appointment. improper threat' mo- entering improve- tives into the creation or interpretation con- think our We public ment of a office filled elec- provisions with is in accordance stitutional tion must have been considered remote. It contrary purpose sought to and not to the appear principal purpose would that Texas be served 18 of the Article § of Article 18 of the Texas Constitu- § Toronto, 16 In Constitution. Shields v. remove, possible, tion is if any improper Su- (1964), 2d

Utah P.2d personal gain motive of might that influ- preme said: Court Utah Legislator ence a to create or increase the public emoluments of a office with in- “The obvious purpose of Section resigning post legislative tention of his (VI) Article practically [which he, order take the office which as a identical with Article 18 of the § * ** Legislator, helped had or create make was to Constitution] more attractive from a financial stand- guard against dishonesty improper point. purpose sought to be served connivance legislators provisions of Article 18 of the prevent them being influenced way Constitution will no be frustrated by ulterior schemes to enrich them- by holding or defeated the relators expense selves at public to hold the office of General for treasury by creating or increasing the beginning January the term pay public of a taking and then advantage of it. purpose This is alto- Having wording considered the of said gether salutary. Let it be said with weighed purpose 18 and greatest emphasis that the adoption, of its hold both we Senator vision referred to should neither Spears and Senator Calhoun are entitled to ignored evaded, nor but whenever prayed for by the relief them in their re- there is possibility even a remote issue, spective petitions. Writs will not designed prevent evil it was might exist, applied however, anticipate respond- it should be in such as we the CALVERT, comply holdings (dissenting). ent our herein Chief will with Justice accept applications the filed rela- and agree I that a of mandamus should writ place upon the Demo- tors and their names A-11215, in issue Cause No. but I cannot primary respondent cratic ballot. Should agree in that a writ issue Cause No. should perform, peremptory fail to so writs of A-11224. upon application

mandamus will issue relators as a of course. Because matter in relator Cause No. right of the The expiration prescribed the of the time for entirely prop- on a turns A-11215 to a writ applications place upon filing the for a provi- constitutional interpretation of er provisions primary ballot under the and end- beginning establishing the sions 13.12, Election 2 of Vernon’s of office as four-year term his ing dates of hand, is motion for re- Code near at no reasons stated for the agree, a Senator. I hearing entertained. will be four-year that his opinion, in the Court’s gen- day began on

term of November, and will in election eral CALVERT, J., in cause dissents No. C. election general end on the A-11224. thus that he November, in and held of At- the office ineligible is not to hold GRIFFIN, causes J., dissents in both beginning term torney for a General Jan- A-11215 A-11224. Nos. be elected thereto uary 1, if he should in election in November. GRIFFIN, (dissenting). Justice present A-11224 in No. The facts Cause consti- entirely different an additional agree regret that I am unable I in this cause problem. relator tutional opinion in either case. majority election held elected in the November, 1964; at that if his election past con- holding contrary to all is from the four-year term time was for a structions the terms of Senators. When ineligible election, rendered of his he is people out the Constitution took for a hold the office of beginning of a Sena- specific time for the by the January beginning term beginning left in the tor’s term and of the Constitu- visions of Art. III Sec. members, shows the term of House this provides: tion. Sec. people did not intend the members begin terms on House Senate to shall, Representative “No Senator or same date. may he during the which he term for elected, office of civil originally Since deleting State, profit have under this which shall term, people date for a Senator’s have created, been the emoluments of definitely three refused to state a be- times during have been increased This ginning date for a term. Senator’s ”* * * term; my position. Also, ma- further fortifies jority opinion contrary previous to all render not But it is said that does Sec. constructions of the ineligible begin- at the the relator because Legislature, General and ning four-year of his term Comptroller issuing members of pay term of of- re-apportioned down his and cut charge Legislature; also those years. requires an exam- fice to two This eligibility for retirement determination of III. provisions Art. ination of the of Sec. of Senators. (cid:127) It reads: by the man- "The shall he chosen deny application Senators

I would qualified electors damus both relators. of four chosen shall be years; but new Senate Ruby Faye WILLIAMS, James Charlie every apportionment, the Sen- after Appellants, Duson, Draper, and Lewis apportionment ators elected after each classes. shall be divided lot into two Texas, Appellee. first The seats of the Senators of the The STATE expiration be class shall vacated at the No. 39190. years, the first two those Appealsof Texas. of Criminal Court expiration four second at the class years, so that one half the Senators Feb. biennially

shall chosen be thereafter.” opening

It bewill noted that the clause of explicitly emphatically

the section states “The Senators shall be chosen * * * years; the term four ” * * * The authors of the Constitution hardly plainer language.

could have used undoubtedly

It is provides true that Sec. 3

two four-year circumstances under which a

term to which may a Senator was elected

effectively ended before it has run its

full four-year course. The term of a Sen-

ator who is in reapportionment when is is voted cut to require- two

ment for the election of a new Senate. The

four-year term of one-half all Senators re-apportionment elected is cut two after

years by provision vacating seats if

they unlucky are in the division of the Sen-

ate into two classes light lot. In of these

provisions the interprets Court Sec. 18 as

though it read: “No Representa- Senator or shall,

tive during the term for which he elected, be eligible” etc., “except that he if some other

in the Constitution the four-year term to

which he is elected two-year reduced ato

term.” perhaps hindsight, the au- a matter modify

thors Constitution would now language by adding of Sec. 3 the same

exception which the Court has added. If power

I were entrusted to rewrite Constitution,

or amend the I would add the

exception; way only but there is one

change the Constitution and that is an

amendment submitted approved by the electorate. cannot I

get my usurp power. consent deny

I relief Cause No. A-11224. would

Case Details

Case Name: Spears v. Davis

Court Name: Texas Supreme Court

Date Published: Jan 31, 1966

Citation: 398 S.W.2d 921

Docket Number: A-11215, A-11224

Court Abbreviation: Tex.