Did an appropriations rider violate the Texas Constitution by treating two affidavits as adequate proof of citizenship or residency for state-funded health services?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1983. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-64: Health Appropriations Residency Rider
Plain-English summary
JM-64 concluded that an appropriations rider restricting certain Department of Health and Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation expenditures to Texas citizens or residents did not violate article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution.
"Having applied the standards of that constitutional provision to the instant rider, we find that it meets the requirements of article III, section 35."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
The challenged sentence treated affidavits from two reputable people as adequate evidence of citizenship or residency. JM-64 found that this was an explanation of the funding restriction, necessarily connected and incidental to the appropriation, rather than unrelated general legislation.
"It appears that the second sentence is merely an explanation or definition of what constitutes citizenship or residency for the purpose of the first sentence."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf"Therefore, it meets the test of being necessarily connected with and incidental to the appropriation and use of funds and neither conflicts with nor amounts to general legislation."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1983. 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
What did the rider prohibit?
It prohibited use of the appropriated health-agency funds for nonemergency training or medical treatment of a student or patient who was not a Texas citizen or resident.
"None of the moneys appropriated to the Department of Health and Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation may be expended for the training or medical treatment, except in emergencies, of any student or patient who is not a citizen or resident of this state."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
What proof did the rider accept?
It made affidavits from two reputable persons adequate evidence of citizenship or residency for purposes of the provision.
"For the purpose of this provision, affidavits from two reputable persons shall be deemed adequate evidence of citizenship or residency."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
What was the Department of Health's objection?
The commissioner argued that the second sentence enacted general law by limiting the department's ability to require more proof than two affidavits.
"[It] is an attempt to enact general law by establishing evidentiary criteria to limit the authority of this department to require proof of residency beyond the two affidavits standard recited in the [rider]."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
Could an appropriations rider restrict how appropriated money was used?
Yes. JM-64 quoted the established rule that an appropriations bill could detail, limit, or restrict the use of funds and ensure that money was spent for its intended purpose.
"An appropriation bill may detail, limit or restrict the use of funds therein appropriated or otherwise insure that the appropriated money will be spent for the purpose intended."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
What could an appropriations rider not do?
It could not repeal, modify, or amend an existing general law.
"A rider attached to the general appropriation bill cannot repeal, modify or amend an existing general law."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
Was there another law governing the department's residency determination?
The requester cited none, and JM-64 found none beyond the rider's first sentence.
"However, you have not cited nor have we found any authority beyond the first sentence of the rider itself regarding the Department of Health's responsibility to determine citizenship or residency."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
Did JM-64 decide the validity of the rider's first sentence?
The requester did not challenge it, though the opinion stated that the first sentence complied with the governing principles.
"You do not challenge the propriety of the first sentence of the passage presented for our consideration, and we believe it does comply with the principles set out above."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
Background and statutory framework
The commissioner asked whether a rider in the then-current general appropriations act complied with the constitutional prohibition on enacting general legislation in an appropriations act.
"You ask whether a rider in the current general appropriations act satisfies article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits the enactment of general legislation in an appropriations act."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
An earlier opinion addressed related questions but had not specifically analyzed this rider under article III, section 35.
"While Attorney General Opinion MW-538 (1982) addresses issues related to this rider, it does not specifically examine it in light of article III, section 35."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
Holding
"A rider in the current General Appropriations Act concerning citizenship or residency does not violate article III, section 35, of the Texas Constitution."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
Citations and references
Constitutional and statutory provisions discussed by JM-64:
- "article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution" Official PDF
- "Acts 1981, 67th Legislature, chapter 875, section 2e(1), at 3604" Official PDF
Cases cited by JM-64:
- "Moore v. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1946)" Official PDF
- "Linden v. Finley, 49 S.W. 578 (Tex. 1899)" Official PDF
- "State v. Steele, 57 Tex. 203 (1882)" Official PDF
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0064
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0064.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
August 17, 1983
Robert Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.P.
Commissioner of Health
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, Texas 78756
Opinion No. JM-64
Re: Whether rider to general appropriations act violates article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution
Dear Dr. Bernstein:
You ask whether a rider in the current general appropriations act satisfies article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits the enactment of general legislation in an appropriations act. The rider you refer to provides the following:
None of the moneys appropriated to the Department of Health and Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation may be expended for the training or medical treatment, except in emergencies, of any student or patient who is not a citizen or resident of this state. For the purpose of this provision, affidavits from two reputable persons shall be deemed adequate evidence of citizenship or residency. (Emphasis added).
Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 875, §2e(1), at 3604.
While Attorney General Opinion MW-538 (1982) addresses issues related to this rider, it does not specifically examine it in light of article III, section 35. Having applied the standards of that constitutional provision to the instant rider, we find that it meets the requirements of article III, section 35.
The principles relevant to the present inquiry are succinctly summarized in Attorney General Opinion M-1199 (1972) as follows:
An appropriation bill may detail, limit or restrict the use of funds therein appropriated or otherwise insure that the appropriated money will be spent for the purpose intended. Moore v. Sheppard, 144 Tex. 537, 192 S.W.2d 559 (1946); Linden v. Finley, 92 Tex. 451, 49 S.W. 578 (1899); Attorney General's Opinions O-445 (1939), V-1253 (1951), V-1254 (1951), 2959 (1935), V-1196 (1951).
A rider attached to the general appropriation bill cannot repeal, modify or amend an existing general law. State v. Steele, 57 Tex. 203 (1882); Linden v. Finley, supra; Moore v. Sheppard, supra; Attorney General's Opinions 1745 (1917), 2787 (1929), 2965 (1935), 2970 (1935), O-445 (1939), O-1837 (1940), O-2573 (1940), O-5329 (1943), V-412 (1947), V-894 (1949), V-1196 (1951), V-1254 (1951), M-1141 (1972).
You do not challenge the propriety of the first sentence of the passage presented for our consideration, and we believe it does comply with the principles set out above. You contend that the second sentence of the passage
is an attempt to enact general law by establishing evidentiary criteria to limit the authority of this department to require proof of residency beyond the two affidavits standard recited in the [rider].
However, you have not cited nor have we found any authority beyond the first sentence of the rider itself regarding the Department of Health's responsibility to determine citizenship or residency. See Attorney General Opinions H-556 (1975); H-156 (1973). It appears that the second sentence is merely an explanation or definition of what constitutes citizenship or residency for the purpose of the first sentence. Therefore, it meets the test of being necessarily connected with and incidental to the appropriation and use of funds and neither conflicts with nor amounts to general legislation. Attorney General Opinions V-1253, V-1254 (1951).
SUMMARY
A rider in the current General Appropriations Act concerning citizenship or residency does not violate article III, section 35, of the Texas Constitution.
Very truly yours,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Colin Carl
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Acting Chairman
Jon Bible
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Jim Moellinger
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1983 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.