. 

, - 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. Box 12546 

Austin, TX. 76711 

5121475-2501 

Telex 9101674.1367 

Telecopier 51214750266 

1607 Main St.. Suite 1400 

Dallas. TX. 75201 

21417426944 

4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 

El Pas6. TX. 79605 

9151533.3464 

12M Dallas Ave., Suite 202 

Hous,~~, TX. 77002 

71316500365 

606 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 76401 

6061747.5236 

4306 N. Tenth. Suite B 

McAllen. TX. 76501 

5121662-4547 

200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 

San Antonio, TX. 76205 

51212254191 

An Equal Opportunity1 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

November 10, 1981 

Honorable Evans N. Wentz 

Executive Director 

State Commission for the Blind 

314 West 11th Street 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Opinion No. Mw-389 

Re: Legality of rider to 

appropriation for State 

Commission for the Blind 

Dear Mr. Wentz: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the validity of a rider 

to the recent appropriation to the State Commission for the Blind. 

Acts 1981. 67th Leg., ch. 875. at 3553. The rider provides In 

pertinent part: 

It is the intent of the Legislature that out 

of funds appropriated above in item 5.a. 

Vocational Rehabilitation an amount not to exceed 

$277,000 each fiscal year shall be expended for 

entering into a contract with the Texas Lions 

League or a similar organization to provide 

rehabilitative services to blind adults at the 

TlZXX3 Lions Camp for Crippled Children at 

Kerrville or a similar facility located outside 

Austin. 

You suggest that this rider is violative of article III, section 35 of 

the Texas Constitution, which the Texas Supreme Court has long 

construed to prohibit the enactment of general legislation within a 

general appropriations bill. See Moore v. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559. 

- 

561 (Tex. 1946). 

It is well established that a rider to a general appropriations 

act is valid if its only effect is to “detail, limit, or restrict the 

use of the funds... therein appropriated.” Attorney General Opinion 

v-1253 (1951). See also Moore v. Sheppard, m; Linden v. Finley. 

49 s.w. 578 (Tex. 1899); Attorney General Opinions MU-51 (1979); 

M-1199 (1972). A rider may not, however, repeal, modify or amend an 

existing general law. 

In our opinion, the rider at Issue here serves only to “detail, 

limit, or restrict the use of the funds” already appropriated. In 

p. 1322 
,~ 

- I 

Mr. Evans N. Wentr - Page 2 (Mw-389) 

Attorney General Opinion MW-51. we considered the following provision 

of the 1979 General Appropriations Act: 

(47) The Texas Department of Human Resources 

is hereby authorized and directed to construct a 

state office building, in cooperation with the 

State Board of Control, consisting of NTE 530.000 

gross square feet (400,000 net square feet). NO 

General Revenue, Children’s Assistance, or Medical 

Assistance funds may be used for this purpose. 

It is the Intent of the Legislature that the 

building house the central administrative offices 

of both the Texas Department of Human Resources 

and the Texas Youth Council. Further, it is the 

intent of the Legislature that the building be 

constructed on State land currently owned by the 

Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental 

Retardation. The Board of Mental Health and 

Mental Retardation is hereby authorized and 

directed to transfer to the State Board of Control 

record title to a certain triangular-shaped tract 

of land 29 acres, more or less, in the north part 

of the City of Austin, bounded on the west by West 

Guadalupe Street and North Lamar Boulevard, on the 

north by 51st Street, on the east by Guadalupe 

Street and having the southern tip of the tract at 

the intersection of Guadalupe and West Guadalupe 

Streets, together with all records held by it 

concerning this tract. 

Relying on the standard affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court in Jessen 

Associates, Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593, 599 (Tex. 1975). we said 

that the language of the rider: 

directs and qualifies the use of funds 

appropriated elsewhere.... It prohibits the use 

of certain categories of funds for construction of 

this building, and it effectively directs the use 

of funds appropriated in other portions of the 

Act. 

Likewise, the rider to the appropriation for the State Commission for 

the Blind constitutes a limitation on the expenditure of funds 

appropriated in item 5.a. In addition, by requiring the commission to 

enter the contract, the rider “effectively directs the use of funds.” 

As we have noted, a rider is invalid if it attempts to repeal. 

modify or-amend an existing law. See. e.g., Attorney General Opinion 

MW-104 (1979). Section 91.052 of the Human Resources Code provides in 

pertinent part: 
,‘: . 

Mr. Evans N. Wentz - Page 3 mw-389) 

(a) The commission [for the Blind] shall conduct 

a program to provide vocational 

rehabilitation services to eligible blind 

disabled individuals. 

(b) To achieve the purposes of the program, the 

commission may: 

(1) cooperate with other public and private 

agencies in studying the problems involved In 

providing vocational rehabilitation and in 

establishing. developing, and providing 

necessary or desirable facilities and 

SCKViCeS.... 

The statute places the decision to “cooperate with other public and 

private agencies” within the commission’s discretion. The rider 

qualifies, but does not remove, chat discretion. The commission 

remains at liberty to determine the amount of the contract, up to 

$277,000; it retains a choice of parties with whom to contract; and it 

retains a choice of facilities. In our opinion, the rider is 

virtually declaratory of existing law and does not repeal, modify or 

amend section 91.052 or any other statute. We conclude that the rider 

is not violative of article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution. 

SUMMARY 

A rider to the appropriation for the State 

Commission for the Blind is not violative of 

article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution. 

=g 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

RICHARD E. GRAY III 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED : 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Susan 1.. Garrison, Chairman 

Rick Gilpin