The Attorney General of Texas 

May 27, 1981 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Honorable Tim Von Dohlen 

Committee on Regions, Compacts & 

Districts 

House of Representatives 

Austin, Texas 78769 

Dear Representative Von Dohlen: 

Opinion No. MW-341 

Re: Ineligibility of campaign contributors for appointment to Good 

Neighbor Commission 

As amended in 1979, section 1 of article 4101-2, V.T.C.S., reads in part: 

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). 

You have asked about the constitutionality of the provision emphasized. 

That language was added by Acts 1979, 66th Legislature, R.S., chapter 

741 at 1825, the title of which act describes it as “An Act relating to the 

expiration, staff, functions, and revenue of the Good Neighbor Commission 

of Texas.” The title makes no mention of the composition of the commission 

or of eligibility 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 Von Dohlen - 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 is not expressed in the title - is entitled 

to a liberal construction; however, a stricter standard is enforced when the matter 

addressed is an amendatory act. Bates v. State, 587 S.W. 2d 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); 

White v. State, 440 S.W. 2d 660 (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 of the 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 in specific terms. C. Hayman Construction Co. v. 

American Indemnity Co., 471 S.W. 2d 564 (Tex. 19711. 

With respect to amendatory acts, a title that does not merely state a purpose to 

amend a statute, but proceeds to specify the particular field an amendment is to cover 

or states a purpose 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 DreClUdes anv 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. 2d 973 (Tex. 1945). Consequently, the 1979 legislation violates article 3, section 

35 of the Texas Constitution in that respect, and the emphasized language is void and 

of no effect, in our 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 is severable 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 of the appointing governor. 

p. 1123 
. 3 

, 

Honorable Tim Von Dohlen - Page Three (m-341) 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

RICHARD E. GRAY III 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Bruce Youngblood 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Rick Gilpin 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 1124