Amidst Friday’s rack of bills vetoed by Gov. Rick Perry, an eagle-eyed reader noticed another that had slipped past the majority of the capitol press corps: Senate Bill 2038 by Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock.
According to its complex legislative analysis, this bill would change the rules so that if the legislature passes a non-substantive code revision, courts couldn’t interpret it as a substantive change.
So why did this veto slip by? Well, for a start, it’s not on the big list put out by Perry on Friday. Secondly, he vetoed it on May 29, when lawmakers were deep in the weeds saving legislation before sine die. Frankly, back then, he could have vetoed the Texas constitution and no-one would have noticed.
In his veto message to lawmakers, Perry said, “Citizens,
judges and lawyers may debate the proper interpretation and application of those words but they may not debate what those words are.” If this bill became law, he ruled, “Judges would no longer be able to apply the law simply by looking at its plain text.”
Well, that ship has sailed. Legislative intent has always been a core component of code enforcement, legal interpretation and court rulings. As has been proven by the lengthy court battle over the state’s stripper surcharge, the issue of lawmakers’ discussion or even consideration of secondary effects can play a core part in the findings. So “plain text” may turn out to be meaningless here.
This article appears in June 19 • 2009.
