# The Attorney General of Texas May27, 1981 MARK WHITE AttorneyGeneral Honorable Tim VonDohlen Committee onRegions, Compacts & Districts House ofRepresentatives Austin, Texas 78769 Dear Representative VonDohlen: Opinion No. MW-341 Re: Ineligibility of campaign contributors for appointment to Good Neighbor Commission

Asamended in 1979,section 1ofarticle 4101-2,V.T.C.S., reads inpart: There is hereby created the Good Neighbor Commission of Texas which shall be composed of nine (9) members, each of whom shall be a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Texas, and shall be appointed by the Governor with advice There is hereby created the Good Neighbor Commission of Texas which shall be composed of nine (9) members, each of whom shall be a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Texas, and shall be appointed by the Governor with advice and consent of the Senate.

... No person shall be eligible to appointment to the CornmIssIon who has contnbuted more than $1,000 on behalf of the politIca candidacy of the Governor who makes the appointments under this Act, or to any pohtlcal action commlttee supporting such candidacy.

‘(Emphasis added). Youhave asked about the constitutionality ofthe provision emphasized. That language wasadded byActs 1979,66th Legislature, R.S., chapter 741at 1825, the title of which act describes it as “An Act relating to the expiration, staff, functions, and revenue of the Good Neighbor Commission ofTexas.” The title makes nomention ofthe composition ofthe commission orofeligibility requirements for members. The Texas Constitution, article 3,section 35,provides: No bill, (except general appropriations bills.

..) 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. (Emphasis added).

p. 1122,

Honorable Tim VonDohlen - Page Two (W-341)

The bill amending article 4104-2, V.T.C.S., was not a general appropriation bill, although it earmarked certain funds for particular uses. See Johnson v. Ferguson, 55 S.W. 2d 153(Tex. Civ. App.- Austin 1932,writ dism’d). attorney General Opinion H-1050 (1977). Generally, the constitutional provision - that an act is void with respect to any subject embraced therein that isnot expressed inthe title - isentitled to a liberal construction; however, a stricter standard is enforced when the matter addressed is anamendatory act. Bates v.State, 587S.W.2d 121(Tex. Crim. App. 1979); White v.State, 440S.W.2d660(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Even with original acts, the rule of liberal construction will not be followed to the extent that it will relieve the legislature of the necessity of disclosing the real subject of the act in the title, nor will it be extended to hold valid an act the title of which is deceptive or misleading as to the real content ofthe act. Fletcher v. State, 439 S.W. 2d 656 (Tex. 1969). Moreover, Texas courts will restrict even an original statute if its title states the subject inspecific terms. C.Hayman Construction Co. v. American Indemnity Co., 471S.W.2d564(Tex. 19711. With respect to amendatory acts, atitle that does not merely state apurpose to amend a statute, but proceeds to specify the particular field an amendment isto cover or states apurpose to make certain changes in the prior law not merely descriptive of the matter to which the law relates, limits the amendatory act to the making of the chances desianated and DreClUdesanv additional. contrarv or different amendment. Arnold v. Le&rd, 273 S.W. 799 (Tex. 1925);White v. State, 440 SW. 2d 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 19691. Here, the language of the title limits the amendment to matters pertaining directly or Indirectly to “the expiration, staff, functions and revenue” of the commission. Nothing in the title would give fair notice to a legislator or any other person interested in the subject matter of the bill that the proposed act would limit membership on the commission to those persons who had not contributed money of a certain amount to the political campaign of the appointing governor. See C. Hayman Construction Co. v.American Indemnity Co., supra Cf. State v.The PGtorians, 186 S.W.2d973 (Tex. 1945). Consequently, the 1979legislation violates article 3, section 35 of the Texas Constitution in that respect, and the emphasized language isvoid and ofnoeffect, inour opinion. Other objections to this provision have also been raised, but in view of our disposition of the matter, we need not reach them. Nor, in the context of your question, need we address other provisions of the statute beyond noting that the language about which you asked isseverable from the remainder of the act. V.T.C.S. art. Ha. SUMMARY

The statutory provision is void which limits membership on the Good Neighbor Commission to persons not contributing to the political campaign ofthe appointing governor.

p. 1123. 3

, Honorable Tim VonDohlen - Page Three (m-341)

MARK WHITE Attorney General ofTexas JOHN W.FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General RICHARD E.GRAY III Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared byBruce Youngblood Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Susan L.Garrison, Chairman Jon Bible Rick Gilpin Bruce Youngblood

p. 1124