The revolving door prohibitions in Senate Bill 1, in contrast, contained no such language. The ethics bill that was ultimately adopted contained one revolving door prohibition written in language that came largely from House Bill 1 and one revolving door prohibition that came largely from Senate Bill 1. Thus the legislative history tends to controvert the suggestion that the two provisions were intentionally worded differently so that they would operate differently. See Trio Indep. Further, it is a general rule of statutory construction in Texas law that statutes are intended to operate prospectively.
Any doubt is to be resolved in favor of prospective application.
In another sense, however, it would operate retroactively because it would place prohibitions on a person because of a status acquired before January 1, 1992. There is probably no constitutional impediment to such a construction. Nonetheless, we think such a construction is contrary to the general principle of prospective application of statutes. See Coastal Indus. That provision does not speak directly to the question before us since the focus of the question is the effect of a provision in regard to a status acquired before January 1, 1992.