Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas February 21, 1986
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General Mr. Don R. Stiles Opinion No. JM-433 Supreme Court Building Executive Director P. 0. Box 12548 Texas Adult Probation Commission Re: Validity of Seoate Bill No. Austin. TX. 79711. 2549 5121475-2501 8100 Cameron Road 454, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., which Telex 910/874-1367 Suite 600. Building B added three members the Texas to Telecopier 5121475-0259 Austin, Texas 78753 Adult Probation Comissicn 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dear Mr. Stiles: Dallas, TX. 75202-4506 2141742.9944
You ask whether Senate Bill No. 454 [hereinafter S.B. No. 4541 of
the Sixty-ninth :Logislature is a valid enactment. S.B. No. 454 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 164 [91515333494] El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 version of S.E. No. 454 section which addefi three new members to the Texas Adult Probation originated in and was passed by the Senate on April 22, 1585. The passed by the Senate contained a that was
Conmission. The Nouse of Representatives received the bill from the ,001 Texas. Suite 700 Houston, TX. 770029111 [71312255888] Senate on April 23. The bill was read for the first time and referred comittee reported the bill favorably to the Committee m Law Enforcement on April 29th. On May 13th, the with substitute. The cc~mittee substitute deleted the section of S.B. No. a complete comittee 454 which added three members to the Adult Probation Commission. 608 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 Subsequent events reveal confusion as to whether the House passed SOW747.5235 the version of S.B. No. 454 which passed the Senate or whether the Eouse passed the mmmittee substitute. The back of the actual hill, 4309 N. Tenth, Suite B which records the; bill's passage through the legislature, reveals McAllen. TX. 78501-1685 that, on May 13th. the committee reported the bill favorably with a 512/682-4547 complete comitter! substitute. The House Journal reflects that this
substitute was rea.d and passed to third reading on May 22d. See H.3. 200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 of Tex., 69th Leg;., Reg. Sess. 3008-3009 (1985). The backyf the San Antonio. TX. 782052797 bill, however, shows that S.E. No. 454 was read a second time and 5121225-4191 passed to third reading without amendment on May 22d. It also reveals
that S.B. No. 454 was read a third time and finally passed, without amendment, on May :23rd. The bill itself, as it was returned to the An Equal OppOrtUnityI Affirmative Action Employer Senate, contained no House amendments. The hill, which was without
House amendments and provided for three new members for the Adult Probation Comiss~.on. was thereafter enrolled and signed by both the President of the Senate and the speaker of the House as required by article III, sect:ltm 38, of the Texas Constitution. Accordingly, we are called upon to determine whether S.B. No. 454 is a valid enactment of the Texas Legislature. It is clear that [a] bil:t in either branch may be amended, but before the bill becomes a law the amendments must *2 Mr. Don R. Stiles - Page 2 (m-433)
have the sanctior: of both branches of the Legisla- ture.
Ex parts May, 40 S.W.2d 811, 812 (Tex. Grim. App. 1931).
On the other hand, wc:ll-established rules govern the determina- tion of whether a bill has <obtained "the sanction of both branches of the Legislature." These rules include the "enrolled bill doctrine." The Texas Supreme Court explained the "enrolled bill doctrine" in Jackson V. Walker, 49 S.W.2d 693, 694 (Tex. 1932), as follows:
The rule has long been established in this state that a duly authenticated, approved, and enrolled statute imports absolute verity and is conclusive; that the act was passed in every respect as desi::nated by the Constitution; and the proclamationof that resort may IU the Governor and t
to invalidate the law. This rule has been followed by the-various courts of this state.
(Extensive citatf,ons omitted). (Emphasis added). Although the rule has received some criticism, see Beckendorff v. --
Rarrls-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, 558 S.W.2- ,>, Iu-lT
(Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 7114th Dist.] 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.), it continues to be applied consistently. See, e.g., Phelps V. State, 594 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex. Grim. App. 1980); Moore V. Edna Hospital District, 449 S.W.2d 508, 514-15 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christ1 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
In the instant case, the only indication that S.B. No. 454 might be invalid appears in the House Journal. The rule is clear that "[tlhe journals are not xore certain and reliable records of what occurred than the enrolled bill. . . .u Nueces County V. King, 350 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex. Civ. App. - San &onio 1961, writ ref'd). Consequently, we conclude that S.B. No. 454, as enrolled, is valid.
SUMMARY By virtue of the "enrolled bill doctrine," Senate Bill No. L.54, which adds three new members to the Texas Acult Probation Commission, is a valid enactmeut of the Sixty-ninth Legislature.
JTM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas *3 Mr. Don R. Stiles - Page 3 (JM-433)
JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney Gtmeral
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attortwy General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Comittet!
Prepared by Jennifer Riggs
Assistant Attorney General