. .
April 7, 1971
Hon. James L. Slider, Chairman Opinion No. M- 831
State Affairs Committee
House of Representatives Re: Validity of House Bill
State Capitol 442 of the 62nd Legisla-
Austin, Texas 78711 ture, R.S. 1971, prohibiting
members, employees and
agents of the State Board
of Insurance from receiving
any compensation from an
insurer doing business in
Texas within six years
after leaving his position
Dear Mr. Slider: with the State.
Your request for an opinion asks whether the provisions
of House Bill 442 of the 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1971,
are valid, The Bill amends Article 1.09-3 of the Texas Insurance
Code to read as follows:
"Article 1.09-3.
"(a) All members of the State Board of In-
surance, Commissioner of Insurance, and all em-
ployees and agents of the State Board of Insurance
shall be subject to the code of ethics and the
standard of conduct imposed by Chapter 100, Acts
of the Fifty-fifth Legislature, Regular Session,
1957.
"(b) I n addition to the code of ethics and
standard of conduct imposed by Subsection (a) of
this Article, no person subject to Subsection (a)
may receive, within six years after leaving his
position or job with the Board, compensat;on from
any insurer doing business in this state.
Section 19 of Article I of the Constitution of Texas
reads:
"Sec. lg. No citizen of this State shall be
deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or
immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except
-4025-
Hon. James L. Slider, page 2 (M-831)
by the due course of the law of the land .‘I
The liberty of contract which includes the ccrrespcndir,:
right to accept a contract proposed, is a constitut~ionai right
protected by the orcvisions of Section lo of Article 1 of the
Constitution of Texas, above quoted. In St. Louis Southwestern
RY. co. v. Griffin, 1.06 Tex. 477, 171 S.W. 703 (lgiq the Supreme
Court stated:
“The citizen has the liberty of contract as
a natural right which is beyond the power of the
government to take from him . . (at p. 704).
We are aware that the freedom of contract may’be limited
where there are visible reasons of public policy for the limitation
and the right to contract while protected by Section 19 of Article
I is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable regulation
in the interest of public welfare. International Brotherhood v.
Huval, 140 Tex. 21, 166 S.W .2d 10’1 (ir?rimri,i?ge v. Home Life &
A-c.
- Ins. Co., 246 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.Civ.App. 1931, no writ!-
It is therefore our opinion that the prohibitions contained
in this Bill are violative of an individual’s constitutional right
of contract which is protected by Section 19 of Article I: of the
Constitution of Texas.
You are accordingly advised that the provisicns -f
House Bill 442 of the 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, lr71,
are unconstitutional, being in viclation of Section 19 zi’ Artile
i of the Constitution of Texas,
SUMMARY
--~-
House Biil, 442 of the 62nd Legislature, R .S.
1971 I wherein it would prohibit all members, agents
and employees of the State Board of Insurance from
receiving compensation from any insurer witnir six
years after terminating their official positio- cw:th
the State violates Section 19 of Article I of the
Constitution of Texas.
Very truly yours,
CRAWFORD C. MARTIN
Attorney General of Texas
First Assistant
-4026-
Hon. James L. Slider, page 3 (M-831)
Prepared by John Reeves
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns Taylor, Chairman
W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
Jay Floyd
James Quick
Wardlow Lane
Ivan Williams
MEADE F. GRIFFIN
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRED WALKER
Executive Assistant
-4027-