Can a bill about big-city development plats be struck down because its title doesn't mention extraterritorial jurisdiction?

Texas AG Opinion JM-387: Plat Law Single-Subject Rule

Plain-English summary

In 1985 the Legislature passed House Bill 2370 (chapter 568), a law about submitting and approving development plats in cities of 1,500,000 residents or more, which in practice meant Houston. The Harris County Attorney asked the Attorney General whether the law violated the Texas Constitution's rule that a bill can cover only one subject, which must be expressed in its title (article III, section 35). His concern was that the title talked about plats in big cities but the text of the law also reached into a city's extraterritorial jurisdiction, the unincorporated area just outside city limits, without the title mentioning it. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

The Attorney General concluded the law was fine. The single-subject rule exists to prevent log-rolling, to keep legislators from being surprised by hidden provisions, and to let the public know what is under consideration. But the courts read a bill's caption liberally and uphold it when possible, and a title that states a general subject can cover any provision in the body that is germane to that subject. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

Here the title described the subject as the filing of plats in certain cities, and extraterritorial jurisdiction is inextricably related to platting subdivisions in cities. So the extraterritorial provisions in the text were germane to the subject stated in the title, and the title did not need to spell them out separately. The AG concluded the subject of chapter 568 was adequately expressed in its title, so the law did not violate article III, section 35. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985 and analyzed article 974a-3, V.T.C.S. (House Bill 2370), under the single-subject and title requirement of article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution. The platting statutes it references have since been recodified into the Local Government Code. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice.

Common questions

What does the single-subject rule in article III, section 35 require?

That a bill contain only one subject, expressed in its title. If a provision is embraced in the act but not expressed in the title, only that unexpressed part is void. The Attorney General noted the rule guards against log-rolling, surprise provisions, and keeping the public in the dark. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

Why didn't the title have to mention extraterritorial jurisdiction?

Because it was germane to the stated subject. Courts read captions liberally, and a title stating a general subject covers body provisions related to it. The AG reasoned that extraterritorial jurisdiction is inextricably tied to platting subdivisions in cities, so the plat-filing title covered the extraterritorial provisions. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

Does a general title make a law more or less likely to survive this challenge?

More likely, within limits. The AG relied on cases holding that a statute stating a subject in general terms is valid as to any body provision germane to that general subject. A broadly worded but accurate title is harder to attack than one that appears to narrow the law's reach. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Article III, section 35 provides that no bill (except general appropriation bills) shall contain more than one subject, expressed in its title, and that any subject not so expressed is void only as to that part. The AG quoted the Interpretive Commentary explaining the threefold purpose: preventing log-rolling, preventing surprise or fraud on legislators, and fairly apprising the public of legislation under consideration. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

The provision is mandatory (Sutherland v. Board of Trustees of Bishop Independent School District, 261 S.W. 489, 490 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1924, writ ref'd)), but a caption is construed liberally to uphold validity, and none of a statute's provisions are unconstitutional where they relate to the same subject and are not foreign to the title (C. Hayman Construction Company v. American Indemnity Company, 471 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex. 1971); Lee v. State, 163 Tex. 89, 352 S.W.2d 724 (1962)). Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

The bill's title related to the submission and approval of certain development plats in cities of 1,500,000 residents or more and provided a penalty. Because that title described the general subject of plat filing rather than limiting the law to a city's normal governance, and because extraterritorial jurisdiction is inextricably related to platting subdivisions in cities (see V.T.C.S. arts. 970a, 974a), the AG applied the rule that a title stating a subject in general terms covers body provisions germane to that subject (Doeppenschmidt v. I. & G. N. R. Co., 100 Tex. 532, 101 S.W. 1080 (1907); Central Education Agency v. Ind. School Dist. of El Paso, 152 Tex. 56, 254 S.W.2d 357 (1953)). The title was therefore adequate. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

Citations and references

• Tex. Const. art. III, §35
• article 974a-3, V.T.C.S. (H.B. No. 2370, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 568); V.T.C.S. arts. 970a, 974a
• Sutherland v. Board of Trustees of Bishop Independent School District, 261 S.W. 489, 490 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1924, writ ref'd)
• Lee v. State, 163 Tex. 89, 352 S.W.2d 724 (1962)
• C. Hayman Construction Company v. American Indemnity Company, 471 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex. 1971)
• Doeppenschmidt v. I. & G. N. R. Co., 100 Tex. 532, 101 S.W. 1080 (1907)
• Consolidated Underwriters v. Kirby Lumber Co., Tex. Com. App., 267 S.W. 703
• Central Education Agency v. Ind. School Dist. of El Paso, 152 Tex. 56, 254 S.W.2d 357 (1953)
• Stone v. Brown, 54 Tex. 330

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0387
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0387.pdf

Original opinion text

Transcribed from the scanned PDF by OCR. Character-level scanning errors have been cleaned; the wording, citations, and substance are reproduced as issued.

The Attorney General of Texas

December 2, 1985

Honorable Mike Driscoll
Harris County Attorney
1001 Preston, Suite 634
Houston, Texas 77002

Opinion No. JM-387

Re: Constitutionality of House Bill No. 2370, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 568, at 4427, which applies to counties and areas of counties outside the boundaries of cities of 1.5 million or more residents

Dear Mr. Driscoll:

You have inquired whether chapter 568 of the Sixty-ninth Legislature, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 568, at 4427, which enacted article 974a-3, V.T.C.S., violates article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution. This section provides as follows:

No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed.

Tex. Const. art. III, §35. The Interpretive Commentary following the above quoted provision states, in part, as follows:

The purpose of the title-subject provision is threefold: First, it is designed to prevent log-rolling legislation, i.e., to prevent the writing of several subjects having no connection 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 the titles give no intimation, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted. Third, it permits the people to be fairly apprised of the subjects of legislation under consideration, so that they may have an opportunity of being heard, if they so desire.

Tex. Const. 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. 489, 490 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1924, writ ref'd),

[i]t is also well settled that the caption of an act should be liberally construed so as to uphold its validity if at all possible. Gulf Ins. Co. v. James (supra); Lee v. State, 163 Tex. 89, 352 S.W.2d 724 (1962). It has also been held that, 'none of the provisions of a statute should be regarded as unconstitutional where they relate, directly or indirectly, to the same subject, have mutual connection, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title.' Stone v. Brown, 54 Tex. 330.

C. Hayman Construction Company v. American Indemnity Company, 471 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex. 1971).

The title of the questioned enactment reads as follows:

relating to the submission and approval of certain development plats in cities of 1,500,000 residents or more; providing a penalty.

V.T.C.S. art. 974a-3, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 568, at 4427 (title to H.B. No. 2370). You challenge this title's adequacy because it "does not refer to cities' extraterritorial jurisdiction . . . ." The text of the statute does refer to cities' extraterritorial jurisdiction.

On the basis of the authorities cited above, we conclude that the subject of chapter 568 is adequately expressed within its title. The title does not, as you seem to suggest, restrict its applicability to the limits of a city's normal governance, but rather merely describes the subject as being the filing of plats in 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, supra. Since extraterritorial jurisdiction is inextricably related to platting 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 stated 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 subject stated in the title of the act. Doeppenschmidt v. I. & G. N. R. Co., 100 Tex. 532, 101 S.W. 1080 (1907); Consolidated Underwriters v. Kirby Lumber Co., Tex. Com. App., 267 S.W. 703 (opinion adopted 1943); Central Education Agency v. Ind. School Dist. of El Paso, 152 Tex. 56, 254 S.W.2d 357 (1953).

C. Hayman Construction Company v. American Indemnity Company, 471 S.W.2d at 566 (Tex. 1971).

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 yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

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