The Attorney General of Texas 

February 6, 1980 

Honorable Henry Wade 

District Attorney 

Sixth Floor, Records Buildin 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Opinion No. m-199 

Re: Validity of county prohibition 

on the purehese of faeign 

automobiles. 

Dear Mr. Wader 

You ask whether the Dsllas County Commiskners Court has authority 

to adopt a policy against the purchase of foreign cars for official county 

purposes. We first must determine whether the purchase of automobiles by 

Dallas County is subject to article 2366% V.T.C.B., which requires 

competitive btdding for any county purchase of $3,000 or mae. In the past, 

section 2 of article 2368a made the competitive bidding requirement 

inapplicable to counties having a population of mere than 350,600 

inhabitants. Bee Acts 1973,6&d Leg., ch 269, S l, at 635. Thus, it did not 

apply to Dalla~ounty. 

However, sectia~ 2 of article 2368a was revised by the 66th 

Legislature. It was the subjeot of two amendmen&l, which retained the 

population limitation. Senate Bill No. 4S6, Acts lS79,66th Leg., ch. 436, at 

540; Senate Bill No. SOS, Acts 1929, 66th Leg., ch, 824, at 2147. Another 

statute expressly repealed the population limitation. House Bill No. 1612, 

Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch 770, at ISOl, to be codified as V.T.C.S. art. 

2368a.3, S 8. The repealing statute was enacted cn May 24 and became 

effective on June 13. Each of the amendments was enacted at ti earlier 

date thsn ~the repeakr, hut became effective at a later date. Senate Bill 

436 was enacted on May I2 and became effective August 27. Senate BilI 309 

was enacted UI .May 18 end became effect4 ve on June 14. 

Where conducting statutes are enacted by the name session of the 

legislature, the latest expression of legislative intent prevails Ex Jcp Jesus de la 0. 227 S.W.td 212 (Tex. Crim. MO); Attorney General Opm on 

-The . repealing statute was the last enacted statute, and thus 

represents the most recent expressian of legislative intent cn the subject. It 

fs suggested, however, that the statute with the latest effective We, rather 

than date of enactment, should prevaiL We do not find a Texas case or 

Attorney General opinion that deals with this issue, The Code Construction 

Act, however, states the following general rule: 

p. 1147 
. 

_ . 

Honorable Henry Wade - Page Two (Mw-139) 

. . . if statutes enacted at the same or different sessions of the 

legislature are irreconcilable, the statute latest in date of 

enactment prevails. 

V.T.C.S. art. 5429b-2, S 3.05(a). Although article 2368a, V.T.C.S., is not part 0f.a code 

and thus not subject to the Code Construction Act, see Harris County v. Suburban Utility 

Company, 547 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. Civ. App. - Ho@& ilst Did.] 1977, no wit), th& 

provision does express the legislature’s view that the date of enactment is the significant 

date. 

Moreover, this question has been addressed by legal scholars and by the courts of 

other jurisdictions. Sutherland on Statutory Construction states the following rule: 

Because the latest expression of the legislative will prevails, the 

statute last passed will prevaii over a statute passed prior to it, 

irrespective of whether the prior statute takes effect before Q 

after the later statute. 

lA Sutherland Statutory Construction, S 23.17, at 251(4th ed. by C. Sands 1972). See also 

al 1905); Phelps vi City of Minneapolis, 219 N.W. 87E 

conclude that House Bin 1612, as the latest expression of 

legislative intent, repealed the population limitation formerly found in section 2 of article 

2368a, V.T.C.S. Dallas County is now subject to the competitive bidding requirement of 

that statute. 

In Texas Highway Comm’n v. Texas Ass% of Steel Importers, Inc., 372 S.W.2d.525 

(Tex. 1963), the court dealt with a Highway Department rule restrictmg bids ‘to those 

providing that materials furnished would be .manufactured in the United States, its 

territories end possessions. The court held that the rule was illegal as a violation of the 

relevant eompetitive bidding statute and quoted with approval the following statement 

regarding competitive bidding from Sterrett v. BelJ. 240 S.W.Bd 516, 520 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

Dallas 1955 no writ): 

Its purpose is to stimulate competition, prevent favoritism and 

secure the best work and materials at the lowest practicabLs price, 

for the beat interests and benefit of tha taxpayers and property 

owners. There can be no competitive bidding in a legal sense where 

the terms of tha letting of the contract prevent or restrict 

competition, favor a contractor or material man, or increase the 

cost of the work or of the materials cc other items go@ into the 

project. 

372 S.Wld at 527. Attorney General Opinion H-1086 08771 determined that a county 

requirement restricting the source of materials would also be an illegal restriction upon 

competitiar Consequently, Dallas County may not adopt a policy against the purchase of 

foreign cats for official county purposes where .the value of the contract exceeds $3,000. 

p. 448 
. .: 

Honorable Henry Wade - Page Three (Mw-139) 

SUMMARY 

Dallas County is subject to the competitive biddirrg requiremmts 

stated in article 2366a, V.T.C.S. It may not adopt a policy agfhd 

the purchase of toreign ars ice official county purposes where the 

contract price exceeds $3,000. 

Y%$g;# 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive As&ant Attorney General 

Prepared by Susan Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED:. 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Jim Allison 

David B. Brooks 

Walter Davis 

Bob Gammage 

Susan Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

Bruce Youngblood 

. 

i 

p. 449