Court Opinion

ID: 9706097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:31:27.71249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:19.320738
License: Public Domain

STEVE McKEITHEN, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority ignores the plain language of article III, section 52e of the Texas Constitution. See Tex. Const, art. Ill, § 52e. Specifically, the majority ignores the difference between the singular (“term”) and the plural (“terms”) in interpreting section 52e. See Spradlin v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 34 S.W.3d 578, 580 (Tex.2000) (When interpreting the Texas Constitution, courts presume its language was carefully selected, construe its words as they are generally understood, and “rely heavily on the plain language of the Constitution’s literal text.”).
Article III, section 52e expressly uses the singular word “term” rather than “terms” in providing for continuation of salary payments. Tex. Const, art. Ill, § 52e. However, rather than interpreting the constitutional provision itself according to its plain meaning, the majority instead focuses on the use of the plural in the 1967 ballot, on which the proposed amendment was presented to voters. In its analysis, the majority ignores the remainder of the 1967 joint senate resolution, as well as the text of the ultimately adopted constitutional amendment, both of which use the word “term” rather than “terms.” See id.; Tex. S.J. Res. 6, 60th Leg., R.S., 1967 Tex. Gen. Laws 2969. I believe we set sail into treacherous waters when we use language appearing in a ballot and other such legislative history to modify the plain meaning of the language contained in the constitutional provision itself. Because I cannot agree with the majority’s interpretation of article III, section 52e, I respectfully dissent.