Case Information
*1 .
The Attorney General of Texas Declmber 2. 1985 JIM MATTOX
Attorney General Teleconler 512/475G?SS
Supreme Court Building Telex 910/874-1387 P. 0. BOX 12548 Austin, TX. 78711. 2548 "7002 Houston, Texas Honorable Mike Dr:Lscoll Harris County Attorney 1001 Preston, Suixe 634 Re: Constitutionality of House Bill No. 2370, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. Opinion No. .JM-387 568, 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: You have inquired whether chapter 568 of the Sixty-ninth Legisla- 4924 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 ture, Acts 1985, 6'9th Leg., ch. 568, at 4427, which enacted article El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 9151533-3484 974a-3, V.T.C.S., violates article III. section 35 of the Texas Constitution. Thltt section provides es follows: 1001 Texas. Suite 700 No bill, (except general appropriation bills, Houston, TX. 77002-3111 which 'my embrace the various subjects and 713l2255896 accountlr, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than ona subject, 808 Broadway, Suite 312 which shall be expressed in its title. But if any Lubbock. TX. 79401-3479 subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall 9081747-5238 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 The 'pnpose of the title-subject provision is 5121225.4191 threefold: First, it is designed to prevent
log-rol!.ing legislation, i.e., to prevent the writing of several subjectshaving no connection A” Equal OPPOrtUnitYi with each other in one bill for the purpose of Affirmative Actlon EmPlOW
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 *2 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 plattl in 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.thorities cited 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 :iiling of 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:d in 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 *3 Honorable Mike Driscoll - :?sge 3 (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.
Very truly your , L-l 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