Was Senate Bill 454 valid even though the Texas House Journal suggested the House may have passed a substitute that omitted three new probation-commission members?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-433: The Enrolled-Bill Doctrine
Plain-English summary
Senate Bill 454 added three members to the Texas Adult Probation Commission. The Senate passed that version, but a House committee substitute deleted the membership provision, and the House Journal indicated that the substitute was read and advanced. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
Other legislative records showed the bill passing without amendment. The version returned to the Senate, enrolled, and signed by the presiding officers contained the three new members. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
JM-433 concluded that the bill was valid under the enrolled-bill doctrine. A duly authenticated and enrolled act was treated as conclusive evidence of constitutional passage, and the conflicting House Journal could not invalidate it. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
Why did the difference between the Senate bill and committee substitute matter?
A bill's amendments must receive the approval of both legislative chambers before the bill becomes law. The records created uncertainty about which text the House had approved. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
Could the House Journal be used to defeat the enrolled act?
No. JM-433 said the journal was not a more certain or reliable record than the enrolled bill and therefore did not overcome the enrolled version. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
What did the validated version of Senate Bill 454 do?
It added three members to the Texas Adult Probation Commission. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
Background and statutory framework
The House committee reported a complete substitute that omitted the membership provision, while the physical bill record and the enrolled bill indicated passage without a House amendment. The enrolled bill was signed by the Senate president and House speaker as required by the Texas Constitution. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
Texas cases described an authenticated and enrolled statute as importing absolute verity that the act had passed as the constitution required. JM-433 followed that doctrine despite acknowledging judicial criticism of it. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
Citations and references
- Texas Constitution article III, section 38
- Senate Bill 454, 69th Legislature
- Ex parte May, 40 S.W.2d 811, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1931)
- Jackson v. Walker, 49 S.W.2d 693, 694 (Tex. 1932)
- Beckendorff v. Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, 558 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
- Phelps v. State, 594 S.W.2d 434, 437 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)
- Moore v. Edna Hospital District, 449 S.W.2d 508, 514-15 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
- Nueces County v. King, 350 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1961, writ ref'd)
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0433
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0433.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF via OCR. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
February 21, 1986
Mr. Don R. Stiles
Executive Director
Texas Adult Probation Commission
8100 Cameron Road
Suite 600, Building B
Austin, Texas 78753
Opinion No. JM-433
Re: Validity of Senate Bill No. 454, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., which added three members to the Texas Adult Probation Commission
Dear Mr. Stiles:
You ask whether Senate Bill No. 454 [hereinafter S.B. No. 454] of the Sixty-ninth Legislature is a valid enactment. S.B. No. 454 originated in and was passed by the Senate on April 22, 1985. The version of S.B. No. 454 that was passed by the Senate contained a section which added three new members to the Texas Adult Probation Commission. The House of Representatives received the bill from the Senate on April 23. The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Law Enforcement on April 29th. On May 13th, the committee reported the bill favorably with a complete committee substitute. The committee substitute deleted the section of S.B. No. 454 which added three members to the Adult Probation Commission.
Subsequent events reveal confusion as to whether the House passed the version of S.B. No. 454 which passed the Senate or whether the House passed the committee substitute. The back of the actual bill, which records the bill's passage through the legislature, reveals that, on May 13th, the committee reported the bill favorably with a complete committee substitute. The House Journal reflects that this substitute was read and passed to third reading on May 22d. See H.J. of Tex., 69th Leg., Reg. Sess. 3008-3009 (1985). The back of the bill, however, shows that S.B. No. 454 was read a second time and 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 Senate, contained no House amendments. The bill, which was without House amendments and provided for three new members for the Adult Probation Commission, was thereafter enrolled and signed by both the President of the Senate and the speaker of the House as required by article III, section 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] bill in either branch may be amended, but before the bill becomes a law the amendments must have the sanction of both branches of the Legislature.
Ex parte May, 40 S.W.2d 811, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1931).
On the other hand, well-established rules govern the determination 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 designated by the Constitution; and that resort may not be had to the proclamation of the Governor and the journals of the two houses to invalidate the law. This rule has been followed by the various courts of this state. (Extensive citations omitted). (Emphasis added).
Although the rule has received some criticism, see Beckendorff v. Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, 558 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [14th 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. Crim. App. 1980); Moore v. Edna Hospital District, 449 S.W.2d 508, 514-15 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 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 "[t]he journals are not more certain and reliable records of what occurred than the enrolled bill. . . ." Nueces County v. King, 350 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 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. 454, which adds three new members to the Texas Adult Probation Commission, is a valid enactment of the Sixty-ninth Legislature.
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 Jennifer Riggs
Assistant Attorney General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1986 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.