Can a Texas board still act under a certification statute after it has been repealed?

Texas AG Opinion DM-0058: Acting Under a Repealed Certification Statute

Plain-English summary

The Court Reporters Certification Board asked whether it could still certify someone under a rule that had just been repealed. Former Government Code section 52.021(e) let a court reporter who had passed the national registered professional reporter examination, passed Part B of the Texas board's examination, and stayed active in practice with continuous national membership be certified to the Texas Supreme Court. The Legislature repealed that subsection in House Bill 1417, effective September 1, 1991.

The board's situation was this: a subcommittee had started looking at an applicant's qualifications before September 1 but could not agree, so it put off a decision. By the time the repeal took effect, the board had not certified the applicant to the supreme court. The Attorney General concluded the board could not keep considering the application under the now-repealed subsection.

The answer turned on the wording of the repealing act's savings clause. House Bill 1417 said the repeal applied to certifications made by the board to the supreme court on or after September 1, 1991, and that a certification made before that date stayed governed by the prior law. The opinion read this to preserve the old rule only for certifications the board had actually made to the supreme court before the cutoff. Because this applicant had not been certified to the supreme court before September 1, the application could no longer be acted on under section 52.021(e). That the applicant had submitted the application to the board before September 1 did not change the result.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. The statute it interprets, Government Code section 52.021(e), was already repealed when the opinion issued, and the court reporter certification statutes have changed since. Verify current law before relying on anything here.

Common questions

Could the board keep using a certification rule after the Legislature repealed it?
Under this 1991 opinion, no. The repealing act's savings clause kept the old rule in effect only for certifications the board had already made to the supreme court before the September 1, 1991 effective date.

Did it matter that the application was filed before the repeal took effect?
No. The opinion said the act preserved the prior law based on when the board certified an applicant to the supreme court, not when the applicant filed. Filing before September 1 did not preserve the application.

Why did the board's earlier review not count?
The savings clause looked at whether a certification had been made to the supreme court before September 1, not whether review had begun. The subcommittee had postponed without reaching a decision, so no certification was made before the cutoff.

Background and statutory framework

Former Government Code section 52.021(e) provided a certification path for experienced court reporters who had passed the National Shorthand Reporters Association's registered professional reporter examination and Part B of the board's examination and maintained continuous national membership, entitling them to be certified to the supreme court in the manner provided by section 52.024. House Bill 1417 (Acts 1991, 72d Leg., ch. 799, § 2, at 2809) repealed subsection (e) effective September 1, 1991, with a savings clause stating the repeal applied only to certifications made by the board to the supreme court on or after that date and that a certification made before September 1, 1991 stayed governed by prior law. The opinion construed that clause to require an actual certification to the supreme court before the cutoff for the old rule to apply.

Citations

Statutory and session-law provisions:

• Government Code § 52.021(e) (repealed certification path for experienced court reporters)
• Government Code § 52.024 (manner of certification to the supreme court)
• House Bill 1417, Acts 1991, 72d Leg., ch. 799, § 2, at 2809 (repeal and savings clause)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0058
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1991/dm0058.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

DAN MORALES
Attorney General

November 25, 1991

Honorable Merrill L. Hartman
Court Reporters Certification Board
P.O. Box 13131, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-3131

Opinion No. DM-58

Re: Whether the Court Reporters Certification Board may consider an application for certification under Government Code section 52.021(e) after the effective date of repeal of that provision, when consideration of the application began before the repeal date (RQ-176)

Dear Judge Hartman:

You have requested an opinion from this office concerning the repeal, effective September 1, 1991, of section 52.021(e) of the Government Code. Former section 52.021(e) provided the following:

(e) A person who has successfully completed a registered professional reporter's examination administered by the National Shorthand Reporters Association having standards and requirements equivalent to or more difficult than those prescribed by this chapter, who has made proper application for and successfully passed Part B of the certification examination administered by the Court Reporters Certification Board, and who has been actively engaged in the practice of shorthand reporting while maintaining continuous membership in the national association is entitled to be certified to the supreme court in the manner provided by Section 52.024.

The act repealing this provision, House Bill 1417, states in section 2 that it

takes effect September 1, 1991, and applies only to certifications by the Court Reporters Certification Board to the supreme court . . . made on or after that date. A certification made under Chapter 52, Government Code, before September 1, 1991, is governed by the law as it existed on the date the certification was made, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

Acts 1991, 72d Leg., ch. 799, § 2, at 2809 (emphasis added).

Your request to us is prompted by the following situation. A subcommittee of the board first considered an application for certification under section 52.021(e) before September 1, 1991. However, the subcommittee of the board, being unable to reach a consensus on the applicant's qualifications, postponed further consideration of the application until a future board meeting. As no consensus was reached on the application in question, the board has not certified the applicant to the supreme court. September 1, 1991 has now passed, and you ask whether the board may continue to consider the application under repealed section 52.021(e). We conclude that it may not.

We find that the savings clause in House Bill 1417 was only intended to apply to applications actually pending in the supreme court as of September 1, 1991. House Bill 1417 clearly provides that section 52.021(e) continues in effect only as to certifications made by the Court Reporters Certification Board to the supreme court before September 1, 1991. Id. If the board had certified the individual in question to the supreme court prior to September 1, the applicant would have been entitled to a certificate under former provision 52.021(e). However, such is not the case; as of September 1, the board had not certified the applicant to the supreme court. Accordingly, this particular application may not be considered by the board under section 52.021(e). The fact that the applicant in question submitted the application to the board prior to September 1 does not alter this result.

SUMMARY

The Court Reporters Certification Board may not continue to consider an application for certification under now-repealed section 52.021(e) of the Government Code. Section 52.021(e) continues in effect only as to applications for certification that were pending before the supreme court prior to September 1, 1991.

Very truly yours,

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

WILL PRYOR
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY (Ret.)
Special Assistant Attorney General

RENEA HICKS
Special Assistant Attorney General

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Faith Steinberg
Assistant Attorney General