OPINION
KEASLER, J.,delivered the opinion of the Court
in which KELLER, P.J., and PRICE, WOMACK, and HERYEY, JJ., joined.Charged with conspiracy to violate certain provisions of the Election Code, John Dominick Colyandro, James Walter Ellis, and Thomas Dale Delay moved to quash the charges. They contended that the State failed to allege an offense based on our prior decisions implicitly holding that the offenses defined in Title 4 of the Penal Code, which includes the criminal conspiracy statute, do not apply to offenses defined outside the Penal Code. The trial judge agreed and quashed the charges. The State appealed, and the Third Court of Appeals, bound by our prior holdings, *871affirmed. The State then petitioned for review, arguing that the lower court erred because our prior decisions can be distinguished or should be overruled. We hold that our prior decisions are not subject to distinction and, after examining the Legislature’s actions following those decisions, we adhere to our precedent and affirm the Court of Appeals’s judgment.
I. Procedural Background
In 2005, two Travis County grand juries presented indictments charging Colyan-dro, Ellis, and Delay with, among other things, conspiracy to violate the Election Code. In the thud count of an indictment returned by a grand jury to the 147th Judicial District Court on September 13, 2005, Colyandro and Ellis were charged with conspiracy to make an unlawful political contribution in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 15.02 and Sections 253.003(a), 253.094(a), and 253.104 of the Election Code on or about September 13, 2002. An indictment returned on September 28, 2005, to the 147th Judicial District Court charged Colyandro, Ellis, and Delay with conspiracy to make an unlawful political contribution in violation of Section 15.02, Penal Code, and Election Code Sections 253.003, 253.094, and 253.104 on or about September 13, 2002. Finally, a two-count indictment was returned on October 3, 2005, to the 403rd Judicial District Court. The first count of the indictment, which presented two charges, alleged in part that Colyandro, Ellis, and Delay conspired to make an illegal political contribution to a candidate for the Texas House of Representatives in violation of Section 15.02 of the Penal Code and Subchapter D of Chapter 253 of the Election Code “on or about and between the sixth day of September, A.D., 2002, and the fourth day of October, A.D., 2002[J”
Colyandro, Ellis, and Delay moved to quash these charges, contending that they did not allege an offense under Texas law. Relying on our decisions in Moore v. State1 and Baker v. State,2 Colyandro, Ellis, and Delay argued that Section 15.02 of the Penal Code — the criminal conspiracy statute contained in Title 4 of the Penal Code — did not apply to Election Code violations in 2002.
In Moore, the appellant was convicted in 1975 under the newly-enacted 1974 Penal Code of “attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud.”3 On appeal, the appellant claimed that the indictment was fatally defective because the Penal Code’s criminal attempt provision, Section 15.01(a), located in Title 4, did not apply to the Controlled Substances Act.4 Finding that Section 1.03(b) of the Penal Code specified that only Titles 1, 2, and 3 of the Penal Code were applicable to offenses defined outside the Penal Code, we held that the attempt statute did not apply to the Controlled Substances Act.5 Responding to the State’s argument “that the Legislature intended for the criminal attempt provision ... to apply to the Controlled Substances Act[,]”6 we noted that the Legislature omitted any attempt provision when it enacted the Controlled Substances Act shortly before enacting the new Penal Code even though it had retained such a provision in the Dangerous Drug Act.7 We stated:
*872we cannot agree that the Legislature in enacting the Controlled Substances Act ... made such omission with the knowledge that the new Penal Code (effective four months after the Controlled Substances Act) would make the necessary provisions for making any attempt to violate any provisions of the Controlled Substances Act a criminal offense.8
Less than five months later, in Baker, we held that the Penal Code’s criminal conspiracy statute did not apply to the Controlled Substances Act.9 Following Moore, we concluded: “Since the criminal conspiracy provisions of ... Penal Code, Sec. 15.02 are also contained in Title 4 of the new Penal Code, the general provisions of ... Penal Code, Sec. 1.03(b) ... do not apply to Sec. 15.02[.]”10 As a result, we reversed the trial court’s judgment revoking the appellant’s probation for the offense of conspiracy to sell marijuana, remanded the case, and ordered the prosecution dismissed.11
We reaffirmed Moore and Baker in subsequent cases: Ex parte Lopez,12 Ex parte Barnes,13 Ex parte Russell,14 and Brown v. State.15
Shortly after the Moore-Baker line of cases was issued, the Legislature added Section 4.011 to the Controlled Substances Act in 1981.16 When enacted, Section 4.011 provided that “[t]he provisions of Title 4, Penal Code, apply to Section 4.052 and offenses designated as aggravated offenses under Subchapter 4 of this Act....”17 In 2003, the Legislature added a similar provision to the Election Code, Section 1.018, titled “Applicability of Penal Code.”18 Section 1.018 states: “In addition to Section 1.03, Penal Code, and to other titles of the Penal Code that may apply to this code, Title 4, Penal Code, applies to offenses prescribed by this code.”19
Countering the arguments of Colyandro, Ellis, and Delay, the State argued that Moore and Baker are distinguishable because they addressed the Controlled Substances Act, not the Election Code, and, in the alternative, were wrongly decided. After reviewing the documents filed by the parties, the trial judge quashed the Election Code-based conspiracy charges. The indictment returned on September 28, 2005, was dismissed. The State then filed interlocutory appeals challenging the trial judge’s decision.20
The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge’s decision.21 The court is*873sued a published opinion styled State v. DeLay22 and two unpublished opinions styled State v. Colyandro23 and State v. Ellis,24 which cited the court’s reasoning in DeLay as controlling.25 In the court of appeals, the State reasserted the arguments that it had presented to the trial judge — that Moore and Baker can be distinguished and, alternatively, were incorrectly decided.26
The court of appeals first considered the State’s claim that Moore and Baker were wrongly decided. It concluded that as an intermediate appellate court, it was without authority to overrule this Court’s precedent and was therefore bound to follow Moore and Baker.27 But the court did suggest that we revisit Baker, stating that “Baker appears to be based on questionable reasoning and is arguably in conflict with the history of the criminal conspiracy offense in Texas as well as the growing legislative trend to propagate felony offenses throughout the various statutory codes.”28
Focusing on the history of Texas’s criminal conspiracy law, the court stated that “Baker was a marked departure from the generally applicable conspiracy offense that had been on the books for ninety years.”29 The court also stated that Baker’s holding was not consistent “with the state bar committee on the revision of the penal code’s comment that section 15.02(a) was intended to ‘clarify present law without substantial alteration.’ ”30 Looking at the criminal conspiracy statute and the definition of “felony” provided in Section 1.07(23) of the Penal Code, the court added that when read together, nothing in these provisions “suggests a legislative intent to limit conspiracy to offenses found within the penal code.”31 The court then noted that Section 1.03(b) “does not necessarily limit the applicability of other provisions.” 32 Last, the court observed that the Legislature has codified numerous felony offenses outside the Penal Code and that it is “unlikely that the legislature would have intended to eliminate criminal liability for conspiracy in such a panoply of felony offenses.”33
The court then considered whether Baker is distinguishable and “should be limited in application to the controlled substances act.”34 Rejecting the State’s argument *874that the reasoning we used in Moore is “inapplicable to this case because the legislative history of the election code differs from that of the controlled substances act[,]” the court stated that “the discussion of legislative history in Moore was not carried forward by the court of criminal appeals in Baker.”35 Baker, the court reasoned, was based solely on an interpretation of Section 1.03(b).36 As a result, the court held that Baker “applies with equal force to any offense found outside the penal code whether in the controlled substance act or the election code” and that the trial judge correctly found “that Baker generally limits the application of the penal code’s criminal conspiracy provision to felony offenses contained in the penal code.”37
The State petitioned for review, presenting the following ground for our consideration: “The court of appeals erred in holding that, prior to September 1, 2003, the criminal conspiracy provisions of section 15.02 of the Texas Penal Code did not apply to the felony offense of making an illegal contribution under the Texas Election Code.” We granted review.
II. Analysis
Advancing the same arguments it offered in the district court and the court of appeals, the State urges us to (1) expressly overrule Moore and Baker or (2) limit their application.
A.
We first address the State’s argument that Moore and Baker should be limited. The State argues that the court of appeals erred by extending Moore and Baker to offenses defined in the Election Code and requests that we restrict Moore and Baker to inchoate offenses involving an object offense defined in the Controlled Substances Act.
Title 1 of the Penal Code, labeled “INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS,” includes Chapter 1, which is designated “GENERAL PROVISIONS.”38 Section 1.03 of the Penal Code is located in Chapter 1 of Title 1 and is titled “Effect of Code.”39 The version of Section 1.03(b) in effect when Moore and Baker were decided stated:
The provisions of Titles 1, 2, and 3 of this code apply to offenses defined by other laws, unless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise; however, the punishment affixed to an offense defined outside this code shall be applicable unless the punishment is classified in accordance with this code.40
In Moore, based on our reading of Section 1.03(b), we held that Section 1.03(b) precludes the application of the criminal attempt statute, contained in Title 4 of the Penal Code, to offenses in the Controlled Substances Act.41 And in line with our interpretation of Section 1.03(b) in Moore, in Baker we held that the criminal conspiracy statute, also contained in Title 4, does not apply to offenses in the Controlled Substances Act.42 As the State correctly concedes, our interpretation of Penal Code Section 1.03(b) in Moore and Baker yielded broad implicit holdings — that the inchoate *875offenses contained in Title 4 do not apply to offenses defined outside the Penal Code. Therefore, the court of appeals did not err in extending Moore and Baker to criminal offenses defined in the Election Code, and we decline the State’s invitation to limit our holdings in those cases.
B.
1.
We next consider the State’s contention that Moore and Baker should be overruled. Relying on our decision in Boykin v. State, which established our principal rules for statutory interpretation,43 the State argues that under the plain language of Section 15.02 of the Penal Code and the definition of “felony” in Section 1.07(a)(28) of the Penal Code, the offense of criminal conspiracy applies to all felony offenses defined under Texas law. Continuing, the State claims that when the plain language of Sections 1.07(a)(23) and 15.02 of the Penal Code are considered in combination with the plain language of Sections 258.008, 253.094, and 253.104 of the Election Code, the offense of criminal conspiracy applies to the felony offense of unlawfully making a political contribution.
To put the State’s argument in perspective, a review of the statutes cited by the State is beneficial at this point. “Felony,” as defined in Penal Code Section 1.07(a)(23), “means an offense so designated by law or punishable by death or confinement in a penitentiary.”44 Section 15.02, Penal Code, located in Title 4, defines the offense of criminal conspiracy and states, in relevant part:
(a) A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed:
(1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and
(2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.45
Section 253.003 of the Election Code defines the offense of “Unlawfully Making or Accepting Contribution.”46 Under Subsection (a) of Section 253.003, “[a] person may not knowingly make a political contribution in violation of’ Chapter 253 of the Election Code.47 Subsection (b) states that “[a] person may not knowingly accept a political contribution the person knows to have been made in violation of’ Chapter 253.48 “A violation of Subsection (a) or (b) is a felony of the third degree if the contribution is made in violation of Subchapter p) » 49
Located in Subchapter D, Section 253.094, titled “Contributions and Expenditures Prohibited,” states:
(a) A corporation or labor organization may not make a political contribution or political expenditure that is not authorized by this subchapter.
(b) A corporation or labor organization may not make a political contribution or political expenditure in connection with a recall election, including the circulation *876and submission of a petition to call an election.
(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.50
Section 253.104, also located in Sub-chapter D, is labeled “Contribution to Political Party.”51 Under Subsection (b), “[a] corporation or labor organization may not knowingly make a contribution authorized by Subsection (a) during a period beginning on the 60th day before the date of a general election for state and county officers and continuing through the day of the election.”52 Subsection (a) permits “[a] corporation or labor organization” to “make a contribution from its own property to a political party to be used as provided by Chapter 257.”53 A violation of Subsection (b) is a third-degree-felony offense.54
In opposition, Colyandro, Ellis, and Delay collectively argue that the plain language of Section 1.03(b) establishes that the criminal conspiracy statute does not apply to offenses defined outside the Penal Code unless an extra-Penal Code provision provides otherwise. And, as a result, they contend that in 2002, Section 15.02 did not apply to violations of the Election Code. They further claim that Moore and Baker were correctly decided and fault the State for failing to acknowledge the Legislature’s response to Moore and Baker — the addition of Section 4.011 to the Controlled Substances Act — and the Legislature’s 2003 amendment to the Election Code, which added Section 1.018. The Legislature, they argue, could have amended Section 1.03(b) to include Title 4, but did not.
During oral argument, we sought clarification from the State about its position on the various Penal Code provisions at issue. We asked whether Section 1.03(b) has the effect of exporting only Titles 1, 2, and 3 of the Penal Code to offenses defined outside the Penal Code unless the extra-Penal Code statute defining an offense provides otherwise. The State agreed with this characterization of the effect of Section 1.03(b). And when questioned about whether the definition of “felony” in the Penal Code has the effect of importing felony offenses defined outside the Penal Code into certain offenses defined in the Penal Code, and in particular, the criminal conspiracy statute by virtue of the statute’s requirement that a person commit the offense “with intent that a felony be committed[,]”55 the State again agreed with this characterization of the combined effect of the definition of felony and the criminal conspiracy statute. 2.
Over fourteen years after interpreting Section 1.03(b) in Moore and Baker, we issued our decision in Boykin.56 There, we said that when interpreting a statute to give effect to the “collective legislative intent or purpose,” we concentrate “on the literal text of the statute in question and attempt to discern the fair, objective meaning of that text at the time of its enactment.”57 We will give effect to the plain meaning if, “when read using the *877established canons of construction relating to such text,” the meaning of the text “should have been plain to the legislators who voted on it[.]”58 We will not apply the plain language, however, if (1) the “application of a statute’s plain language would lead to absurd consequences that the Legislature could not possibly have intended,” or (2) the language is ambiguous.59 In those instances, we will consult extratextual sources to reach a rational interpretation.60
Although we did not invoke Boykin’s rules for statutory construction when discerning the meaning of Section 1.03(b) in Moore and Baker, our approach nevertheless conformed to Boykin’s mandate. In Moore and Baker, we focused on the literal text of Section 1.03(b) and found that Section 1.03(b) does not apply to the criminal attempt and conspiracy statutes.61 Because Section 1.03(b) references only Titles 1, 2, and 3 of the Penal Code, we concluded that the criminal attempt and conspiracy statutes in Title 4 of the Penal Code did not apply to offenses defined in the Controlled Substances Act.62 Our review of the predecessor statutes to the Controlled Substances Act in Moore was ancillary to our holding.63 Those statutes were reviewed solely to address the State’s argument that the Legislature intended the criminal attempt statute to apply to the Controlled Substances Act.64 This determination is bolstered by our subsequent decision in Baker. As the court below correctly observed, Baker’s holding was based exclusively on our “interpretation of section 1.03(b) of the penal code to limit the applicability of title 4’s conspiracy provision to offenses found within the penal code.”65
But given the State’s arguments here, we must consider whether we reached the correct result in Moore and Baker, specifically, whether Section 1.03(b) is determinative and therefore precludes the application of the criminal conspiracy statute to felony offenses defined outside the Penal Code. In doing so, we must ask: Were we remiss in considering only Section 1.03(b), thereby failing to take into consideration the criminal conspiracy statute, Section 15.02, Penal Code, and the definition of “felony” in Section 1.07(a)(23) of the Penal Code in Baker? Compelling legislative ratification of our prior interpretation of Penal Code Section 1.03(b) leads us to conclude that the answer is no.
When faced with a challenge to a prior judicial construction of a statute, we have long recognized that prolonged legislative silence or inaction following a judicial interpretation implies that the Legislature has approved of the interpretation.66
*878“[W]e presume the Legislature intends the same construction to continue to apply to a statute when the Legislature meets without overturning that construction.”67 In recognition of this, we have, on occasion, when reaffirming a prior judicial construction of a statute, stated that the prior interpretation was correct when, over the course of many years, it had not been legislatively overruled.68
More recently, however, we stated that “legislative inaction does not necessarily equate to legislative approval.”69 When implying legislative ratification, we observed that there is a distinction between legislative inaction after judicial construction and the Legislature’s reenactment of a statute following judicial construction:
Certainly when a legislature reenacts a law using the same terms that have been judicially construed in a particular manner, one may reasonably infer that the legislature approved of the judicial interpretation. There is considerably less force (though still some) to the argument that if a legislature does not agree with the judicial interpretation of the words or meaning of a statute, the legislature would surely have immediately changed the statute.70
Therefore, the following statement, the substance of which originated from a case before us in 1946, remains true today: “where a statute has been reenacted by the Legislature with knowledge of the judicial construction thereof a court would not be justified in overruling such decision.” 71
The ' Legislature’s actions following Moore and Baker and their progeny demonstrate that it has ratified our interpretation of Section 1.03(b). Since those decisions, the Legislature has carefully crafted statutes to make offenses defined in Title 4 of the Penal Code directly applicable to offenses defined outside the Penal Code. The Legislature has also retained extra-Penal Code criminal statutes incorporating conspiracy or attempt or both. In other instances, the Legislature has amended or enacted extra-Penal Code criminal statutes to include either conspiracy or attempt or both. At the same time, the Legislature has abstained from amending Section 1.03(b) of the Penal Code to include Title 4.
Shortly after the Moore-Baker line of cases, in 1981, the 67th Legislature added Section 4.011 to the Controlled Substances Act, which made Title 4 applicable to Section 4.052, the offense of illegal investment,72 and offenses designated as aggravated under Subchapter 4 of the Act.73 The Legislature, therefore, did not provide for the unlimited application of Title 4 to offenses in the Controlled Substances Act. Punishment for an offense was designated to be “the same as the punishment pre*879scribed for the offense that was the object of the preparatory offense.”74 The 68th Legislature, during the 1983 Regular Session, amended Section 4.011 to include the identical text that was added by the 67th Legislature when Section 4.011 was first enacted.75 Accordingly, the same qualifications placed on the application of Title 4 by the 67th Legislature remained intact when the next Legislature amended Section 4.011.
In 1989, the 71st Legislature moved the Controlled Substances Act from the Revised Civil Statutes to the Health and Safety Code.76 Section 481.108 of the Health and Safety Code is the successor statute to Section 4.011. The Legislature again provided similar limitations on the applicability of Title 4 to offenses defined in the Controlled Substances Act. Section 481.108 stated:
Title 4, Penal Code, applies to Section 481.126[, which defines the offense of Illegal Expenditure and Investment,] and offenses designated as aggravated offenses under this subchapter, except that the punishment for a preparatory offense is the same as the punishment prescribed for the offense that was the object of the preparatory offense.77
Notably, despite the addition of a provision making Title 4 applicable to specific offenses in the Controlled Substances Act and subsequent amendments to that provision, all of which were made during a nine-year period, the Legislature never amended Section 1.03(b) of the Penal Code to include Title 4.
The 73rd Legislature amended both Section 481.108 of the Health and Safety Code78 and Section 1.03(b) of the Penal Code in 1993.79 Both statutes were considered and amended pursuant to Senate Bill 1067.
In amending Section 481.108, the Legislature further restricted the applicability of Title 4, making it applicable only to the offense of illegal expenditure or investment as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 481.126. As amended, Section 481.108 read as follows:
Title 4, Penal Code, applies to Section 481.126, except that the punishment for a preparatory offense under Section 481.126 is the punishment for a first degree felony.80
The Legislature deleted the reference to offenses identified as aggravated in Section 481.10881 and also deleted the designation of “aggravated offense” from various offenses defined in Chapter 481.82
*880Before the Legislature’s 1993 amendment of Section 1.03(b), Section 1.03(b) stated:
The provisions of Titles 1, 2, and 3 of this code apply to offenses defined by other laws, unless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise; however, the punishment affixed to an offense defined outside this code shall be applicable unless the punishment is classified in accordance with this code.83
The 73rd Legislature deleted the words “of this code” from that Section.84 It also added Subsection (c) to Section 1.05 of the Penal Code, the “Construction of Code” statute. That provision stated:
(c) In this code:
(1) a reference to a title, chapter, or section without further identification is a reference to a title, chapter, or section of this code;.... 85
With the addition of Subsection (c)(1) to Section 1.05, the deletion of the text “of this code” from Section 1.03(b) indicates that the Legislature deemed the deleted text to be superfluous. Even though Health and Safety Code Section 481.108 and Penal Code Section 1.03(b) were reviewed and amended together, the Legislature did not amend Section 1.03(b) to include Title 4.
During the 1995 Regular Session, the 74th Legislature amended Section 481.108 of the Controlled Substances Act to apply to all offenses in Chapter 481.86 As enacted, the text of 481.108 stated: “Title 4, Penal Code, applies to an offense under this chapter.”87 Since the 1995 amendment, the text of Section, 481.108 has remained unchanged.88
At the same time, pursuant to Senate Bill 15, the Legislature also added provisions to the Simulated Controlled Substances Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act, the Volatile Chemicals Act, and the Abusable Volatile Chemicals Act to make Penal Code, Title 4 applicable. Section 482.005, which was added 'to the Simulated Controlled Substances Act, made Title 4 of the Penal Code applicable ■ to offenses under Chapter 482.89 ’Section 483.053 was added to the Dangerous Drugs Act.90 Section 483.053 made Penal Code Title 4 applicable to an offense under Subchapter C, titled “Criminal Penalties.”91 Section 484.008, which made Title 4 applicable to offenses under Chapter 484, was added to the Volatile Chemicals Act.92 Finally, Section 485.039 was added to the Abusable Volatile Chemicals Act and provided: “Title 4, Penal Code, applies to an offense under [Subchapter C, Criminal Penalties].” 93 Despite these combined 1995 *881acts, no amendment was made to Section 1.03(b) to include Title 4.
In 2001, the Legislature repealed Section 484.004 from the Volatile Chemicals Act along with numerous other statutes contained in that Act.94 And finally, in 2003, the Legislature amended the Election Code to make Title 4 of the Penal Code applicable to offenses defined in the Election Code.95 Again, the Legislature did not amend Section 1.03(b) to include Title 4.
The Legislature has clearly delineated exactly when Title 4 of the Penal Code will apply to offenses defined outside of the Penal Code. In the thirty years since Moore and Baker were decided, the Legislature has not amended Section 1.03(b) to include Title 4. Instead, it has taken an unmistakable piecemeal approach when it comes to making the offenses contained in Title 4 of the Penal Code applicable to extra-Penal Code criminal offenses. Although we generally presume that the Legislature was aware of our interpretation of a particular statute when it later amends or reenacts that statute after we have rendered a judicial construction,96 in this instance, we can impute actual knowledge. Significantly, each of these acts is in accord with our decisions in Baker and Moore, and when considered collectively, they overwhelmingly show continued legislative approval of our interpretation of Penal Code Section 1.03(b).
Consistent with the approach that the Legislature has taken when making Title 4 applicable to offenses defined outside the Penal Code, the Legislature has maintained and enacted statutes proscribing specific felony offenses involving conspiracy in criminal statutes located outside the Penal Code. Examples of those statutes can be found in the Alcoholic Beverage Code,97 the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983,98 the State Lottery Act,99 and the Transportation Code,100 as *882well as the statute defining the offense of sedition in the Government Code.101 Additionally, from 1997 to 2005, Chapter 36 of the Human Resources Code, titled Medicaid Fraud Prevention, contained a provision prohibiting felony conspiracy. Subsection (9) of Section 36.002, which defines unlawful acts, states that it is unlawful for a person to “knowingly or intentionally enter[ ] into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to defraud the state by obtaining or aiding another person in obtaining an unauthorized payment or benefit from the Medicaid program or a fiscal agent[.]”102 Until it was repealed in 2005, Section 36.131, titled criminal offense, provided that an offense under Section 36.002 was subject to first-, second-, and third-degree-felony-level punishments based on “the value of any payment or monetary or in-kind benefit provided under the Medicaid program, directly or indirectly, as a result of the unlawful act[.]”103
A survey of criminal statutes located outside of the Penal Code also reveals that the Legislature has retained and enacted statutes proscribing specific felony offenses involving attempt or amended existing statutes to include attempt. We have already cited to three of those statutes. Section 15.05(b) of the Business and Commerce Code makes it unlawful for a person to “attempt to monopolize” “any part of trade or commerce.”104 This offense is designated as a felony.105 And the felony offense of sedition, found in Section 557.001(a) of the Government Code, includes attempt among the types of conduct *883prohibited by that statute.106 Section 542.303 of the Transportation Code, which defines inchoate offenses, states that it is an offense to attempt to commit an offense defined in Subtitle C.107 Two examples of offenses that are subject to felony punishment in Subtitle C include Subsection (b) of Section 548.603108 and Section 545.420.109
Section 481.129(a)(5) of the Controlled Substances Act contains the most historically-noteworthy example.110 In Moore, the appellant was charged with attempting to violate Section 4.09(a)(3) of the Controlled Substances Act,111 the forerunner to Section 481.129(a)(5). At that time, Section 4.09(a)(3) stated that “[i]t is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge[.]”112 In 1978, before the Legislature made Title 4 directly applicable to certain offenses in the Controlled Substances Act in 1981,113 the 66th Legislature added “attempt to acquire or obtain” to Section 4.09(a)(3).114 This amendment was clearly a direct response to Moore. Even though this provision was subsequently amended and moved115 and the Legislature expanded the scope of offenses that Penal Code Title 4 applies to in the Controlled Substances Act in 1995,116 the current version of the statute still includes attempt.117
Other examples of statutes prohibiting criminal attempt are located in the Election Code,118 the State Lottery Act,119 the *884Government Code,120 Title 3, Chapter 195 of the Health and Safety Code,121 and the Occupations Code.122
Taken together, these legislative acts establish that, over the course of the past thirty years, the Legislature has repeatedly approved of our interpretation of Section 1.03(b) of the Penal Code that was rendered in Moore and Baker. From this we conclude that our prior construction of Section 1.03(b) is correct. Overruling that construction now would be unjustified; we would impermissibly launch ourselves into the role of super-legislators, disturbing the State’s legislatively-established penal laws.
Adhering to our prior decisions, we hold that Section 1.03(b) controls the application of Penal Code provisions to criminal offenses defined outside the Penal Code. It directs the export of the provisions contained only in Titles 1, 2, and 3 of the Penal Code to criminal offenses defined outside the Penal Code and contemporaneously bars the import of extra-Penal Code offenses to offenses defined in Titles 4 through 11 of the Penal Code. The offenses defined in Title 4 of the Penal Code *885apply to offenses defined outside the Penal Code only where the Legislature has designated that Title 4 is applicable via legislative action like the amendments made to the Controlled Substances Act, the Simulated Controlled Substances Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act, the Abusable and Volatile Chemicals Act, and the Election Code. Because Title 4 of the Penal Code, and therefore the Penal Code’s criminal conspiracy statute, did not apply to offenses defined in the Election Code prior to the inclusion of Section 1.018 to the Election Code in 2003, the court of appeals did not err in affirming the trial judge’s decision to quash the Election Code-based conspiracy charges against Colyandro, Ellis, and Delay.
III. Conclusion
Having determined that our holdings in Moore and Baker cannot be restricted to offenses defined in the Controlled Substances Act and that our interpretation of Section 1.03(b) of the Penal Code in those cases was correct, we affirm the judgment of the Third Court of Appeals upholding the trial judge’s decision to quash the Election Code-based conspiracy charges against Colyandro, Ellis, and Delay.
KELLER, P.J., filed a concurring opinion in which PRICE, J., joined.
PRICE, J., filed a concurring opinion.
. 545 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Crim.App.1976).
. 547 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).
. 545 S.W.2d at 141.
. Id. at 141-42.
. Id. at 142.
. Id. at 141.
. Id. at 142.
. Id.
. 547 S.W.2d at 628.
. Id. at 629.
. Id.
. 549 S.W.2d 401, 402 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).
. 547 S.W.2d 631, 632 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).
. 561 S.W.2d 844, 844-45 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).
. 568 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).
. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4476-15, § 4.011 (Vernon Supp.1981), added by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 268, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1981 (current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.108 (Vernon 2003) (stating "Title 4, Penal Code, applies to an offense under this chapter.")); Woods v. State, 801 S.W.2d 932, 942 (Tex.App.-Austin 1990, pet. ref’d).
. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4476-15, § 4.011.
. Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 1.018 (Vernon Supp. 2004), added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 393, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
. Id.
. TexCode Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(1).
. State v. DeLay, 208 S.W.3d 603, 607-08 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006); State v. Colyandro, Nos. 03-05-00811-CR, 03-05-00812-CR, 03-*87305-00813-CR, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 3195, at *1-2, 2006 WL 1041054, at *1 (Tex.App.-Austin Apr. 19, 2006) (not designated for publication); State v. Ellis, Nos. 03-05-00814-CR, 03-05-00815-CR, 03-05-00816-CR, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 3192, at *1-2, 2006 WL 1041051, at *1 (Tex.App.-Austin Apr.19, 2006) (not designated for publication).
. DeLay, 208 S.W.3d at 603.
. Colyandro, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 3195, 2006 WL 1041054.
. Ellis, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 3192, 2006 WL 1041051.
. Colyandro, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 3195, at *2, 2006 WL 1041054, at *1 Ellis, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 3192, at *2, 2006 WL 1041051, at *1.
. DeLay, 208 S.W.3d at 604, 607.
. Id. at 607.
. Id.
. Id. at 606 (citing Act of Feb. 4, 1884, 18th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 14, § 1, 1884 Tex. Gen. Laws 25, 25).
. Id. (citing Texas Penal Code, A Proposed Revision § 15.02 cmt. at 137 (Final Draft October 1970)).
. Id.
. Id. (citing Tex Penal Code Ann. § 1.03(b)).
. Id.
. Mat 607.
. Id.
. Id.
. Id. at 607-08.
. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974 (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.03(b) (Vernon 2003)).
. Id.
. Id.
. 545 S.W.2dat 142.
. 547 S.W.2d at 629.
. 818 S.W.2d 782, 785-86 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).
. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(23) (Vernon Supp.2002).
. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 15.02 (Vernon Supp.2002).
. Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 253.003 (Vernon Supp.2002).
. Tex Elec.Code Ann. § 253.003(a).
. Tex Elec.Code Ann. § 253.003(b).
. Tex Elec.Code Ann. § 253.003(e).
. Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 253.094 (Vernon Supp.2002).
. Tex Elec.Code Ann. § 253.104 (Vernon Supp.2002).
. Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 253.104(b).
. Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 253.104(a).
. Tex. Elec.Code Ann. § 253.104(c).
. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 15.02(a).
. 818 S.W.2d 782.
. Id. at 785.
. Id.
. Id. (emphasis in original).
. Id. at 785-86.
. Moore, 545 S.W.2d at 142; Baker, 547 S.W.2d at 629.
. Moore, 545 S.W.2d at 142; Baker, 547 S.W.2d at 629.
. Moore, 545 S.W.2d at 142.
. Id. 141-42.
. DeLay, 208 S.W.3d at 607; see also Baker, 547 S.W.2d at 628-29.
. Moore v. State, 868 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (citing Watson v. State, 532 S.W.2d 619, 622 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Lockhart v. State, 150 Tex.Crim. 230, 235, 200 S.W.2d 164, 167-68 (1947) (op. on reh’g)); State v. Hall, 829 S.W.2d 184, 187 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Lewis v. State, 58 Tex.Crim. 351, 361-62, 127 S.W. 808, 812 (1910); see also Watson v. State, 900 S.W.2d 60, 67 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (Clinton, J., concurring); Garcia v. State, 829 S.W.2d 796, 803 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (Miller, J., concurring).
. Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721, 725 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (citing State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516, 523 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)); see also Lewis, 58 Tex.Crim. at 361, 127 S.W. at 812.
. Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); Hall, 829 S.W.2d at 187; see also Smith v. State, 5 S.W.3d 673, 678 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).
. State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892, 903 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).
. Id. at 902 (emphasis in original).
. Collier v. Poe, 732 S.W.2d 332, 345 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (citing Brown v. State, 150 Tex.Crim. 386, 389, 196 S.W.2d 819, 821 (1946)).
. TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 4476-15, § 4.052 (Vernon Supp.1981).
. Added by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 268, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1981.
. Id.
. Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 425, § 4, eff. Aug. 29, 1983; see also 68th Leg., ch. 425, H.B. 1191 at 2361-62 (noting reenactment of Section 4.011 and larger effort to revise, reco-dify, and reenact substantive and procedural laws in the Controlled Substances Act).
. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; see also Marks v. State, 830 S.W.2d 113, 114 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1992).
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.108 (Vernon 1990).
. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 2.02, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.108 (Vernon Supp.1994).
. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 2.02, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
. Id. (amending Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.112(c), 481.113(c), 481.114(c), 481.115(c), 481.116(c), 481.117(c), 481.118(c), 481.120(c), 481.121(c), 481.122(a)).
. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
. Id.
. Id.
. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, ,§ 36, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.108 (Vernon Supp.1996).
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.108 (Vernon 2003; Vernon Supp.2006).
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 482.005 (Vernon Supp.1996; Vernon 2003), added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 39, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 483.053 (Vernon Supp.1996; Vernon 2003), added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 40, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
. Id.
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 484.008 (Vernon Supp.1996), added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 42, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 485.039 (Vernon Supp.1996), added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 43, eff. Sept. 1, 1995, (cur*881rently codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 485.038 (Vernon 2003), Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1463, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001).
. Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1463, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; see also Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 459, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
. Tex Elec.Code Ann. § 1.018 (Vernon Supp. 2006), added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 393, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
. Moore v. State, 868 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Tex.Crim.App.1992).
. Tex. Alco. Bev.Code Ann. § 104.03 (Vernon 1995) (conspiracy; accepting unlawful benefit), Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 194, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1977, (previously codified at Tex Penal Aux. Laws art. 666-17(26) (Vernon 1974) (Acts 1949, 51st Leg., ch. 543, § 7, eff. Oct. 4, 1949)); Tex Alco. Bev.Code Ann. § 206.06 (Vernon 1995) (forgery or counterfeiting), Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 194, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1977, (previously codified at Tex Penal Aux. Laws art. 666-28 (Vernon 1974) (Acts 1937, 45th Leg., ch. 448, § 36, eff. Aug. 21, 1937)).
. Tex Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 15.05 (Vernon 2002) (unlawful acts), amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 519, § 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1983, (previously codified at Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 15.04(a) (Vernon Supp.1968), Acts 1967, 60th Leg., ch. 785, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1967); Tex Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 15.22 (Vernon 2002) (criminal suits), amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 519, § 3, eff. Aug. 29, 1983) (previously codified at Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 15.33 (Vernon Supp.1968), Acts 1967, 60th Leg., ch. 785, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1967).
. Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 466.313 (Vernon 2004) (conspiracy), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 107, § 4.03(b), eff. Aug. 30, 1993; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 466.303 (Vernon 2004) (sale of ticket by unauthorized person), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 107, § 4.03(b), eff. Aug. 30, 1993; Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 466.3054 (Vernon 2004) (group purchase arrangements), added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 6.38, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 466.306 (Vernon 2004) (forgery; alteration of ticket), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 107, § 4.03(b), eff. Aug. 30, 1993; Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 466.307 (Vernon 2004) *882(influencing selection of winner), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 107, § 4.03(b), eff. Aug. 30, 1993; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 466.308 (Vernon 2004) (claiming lottery prize by fraud), amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 6.39, eff. Sept. 1, 1995, added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 107, § 4.03(b), eff. Aug. 30, 1993; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 466.309 (Vernon 2004) (tampering with lottery equipment), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 107, § 4.03(b), eff. Aug. 30, 1993; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 466.310 (Vernon 2004) (certain transfers of claims), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 107, § 4.03(b), eff. Aug. 30, 1993.
. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 542.303(a) (Vernon 1999) (inchoate offenses applicable to offenses in subtitle C, which includes chapters 541-53), Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995, (previously codified at TexRev.Civ. Stat. § 145 (Vernon 1948) (parties to a crime), Acts 1947, 50th Leg., ch. 421, art. XVII, eff. Sept. 4, 1947); Tex Transp. Code Ann. § 548.603(b), (d) (Vernon 1999) (fictitious or counterfeit inspection certificate or insurance document) (offense defined in subsection (b) and text of subsection (d) designating offense in subsection (b) as either a third- or second-degree felony), added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1069, § 16, eff. June 19, 1997; Tex Transp. Code Ann. § 545.420(a), (g)-(h) (Vernon Supp.2006) (racing on highway) (subsections (g) and (h) making offense subject to either a third- or second-degree-felony punishment), added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 535, § 1, Sept. 1, 2003, (previously codified at TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 6701(d), § 185 (Vernon Supp.1972), added by Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., ch. 83, § 94, eff. Aug. 30, 1971).
. Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 557.001 (Vernon 2004), Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993, (previously codified at TexRev. Civ. Stat. art. 6889-3A, §§ 5(3) (unlawful acts), 6 (punishment for violations) (Vernon Supp.1956), Acts 1954, 53rd Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 3, eff. Apr. 15, 1954).
. Tex Hum. Res.Code Ann. § 36.002(9) (Vernon 2001) (unlawful acts), added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 824, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995, amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1153, § 4.03, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 233, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
. Tex Hum. Res.Code Ann. § 36.13l(b)(5)-(7) (Vernon 2001) (criminal offense), added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1153, § 4.09, eff. Sept. 1, 1997, repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 806, § 19, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.
. Tex Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 15.05(b); see also text accompanying note 98 supra.
. Tex Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 15.22(a); see also text accompanying note 98 supra.
. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 557.001(a)-(b); see also text accompanying note 101 supra.
. Tex Transp. Code Ann. § 542.303(a); see also text accompanying note 100 supra.
. Tex Transp. Code Ann. § 548.603(b), (d); see also text accompanying note 100 supra.
. Tex Transp. Code Ann. § 545.420(a), (g)(h); see also text accompanying note 100 supra.
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.129(a)(5), (d) (Vernon 2003) (offense: fraud), amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 251, § 23, eff. Sept. 1, 2001, (previously codified at Tex Health & Safety Code § 481.129(a)(4) (Vernon 1990), added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989); TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 4476-15, § 4.09(a)(3) (Vernon Supp.1986), amended by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., § 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1985; TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 4476-15, § 4.09(a)(3), (b) (Vernon Supp.1979), amended by Acts 1978, 66th Leg., ch. 90, § 6, eff. May 2, 1979.
. 545 S.W.2d at 141.
. TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 4476-15, § 4.09(a)(3) (Vernon 1974).
. Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 268, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1981.
. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 4476-15, § 4.09(a)(3) (Vernon Supp.1979), amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 90, § 6, eff. May 2, 1979; see also Ex parte Holbrook, 609 S.W.2d 541, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (observing that Section "4.09(a)(3) of the Act was amended in 1979 to specifically include the ‘attempt to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance’ in the description of offenses under that section.”).
. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 227, § 10, eff. Sept. 1, 1985; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 251, § 23, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 36, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.129(a)(5) (Vernon 2003).
. Tex Elec.Code Ann. § 2.054 (Vernon 2003) (coercion against candidacy prohibited), added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 667, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
. Tex Gov’t Code Ann. § 466.307 (Vernon 2004) (influencing selection of winner), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 107, § 4.03(b), eff. Aug. 30, 1993, (previously codified at TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 179g, § 4.03(a)(2), (b) (Vernon Supp.1992), added by Acts 1991, *88472nd Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 6, § 2, eff. Nov. 5, 1991); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 466.308 (Vernon 2004) (claiming lottery prize by fraud) (subsections (b) and (c)(1), (2), amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 6.39, eff. Sept. 1, 1995), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 107, § 4.03(b), eff. Aug. 30, 1993, (previously codified at Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 179g, § 4.03(c), (d) (Vernon Supp.1992), added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 6, § 2, eff. Nov. 5, 1991).
. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 557.011 (Vernon 2004) (sabotage), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993, (previously codified at Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 6889-3, § 5 (Vernon Supp.1952), Acts 1951, 52nd Leg., ch. 8, eff. Feb. 27, 1951); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 557.012 (Vernon 2004) (capital sabotage), added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993, (previously codified at Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 6889-3, § 5 (Vernon Supp.1952), Acts 1951, 52nd Leg., ch. 8, eff. Feb. 27, 1951); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 821.101(b) (Vernon 2004) (conversion of funds; fraud), amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 179, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989, (previously codified at Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. tit. 110B, § 31.101 (Vernon Supp.1984), Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 453, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 2922-1.06 (Vernon Supp.1970), Acts 1969, 61st Leg., ch. 41, § 1, eff. Mar. 31, 1969). But see TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 2922-1, § 10 (Vernon Supp.1950), Acts 1949, 51st Leg., ch. 139, art. IX, eff. May 10, 1949.
. Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 195.003(d), (f) (Vernon 2001) (false records), added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989, amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 15, § 5.15, eff. Sept. 1, 1991, (previously codified at TexRev. Civ. Stat. art. 4477c, § 2(a)(3), (b) (Vernon Supp.1979), Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 146, § 1, eff. May 11, 1979, repealed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 13; Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 4477c (Vernon 1974), Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 367, § 2, eff. June 12, 1973; Tex Penal Code art. 781(a) (Vernon 1936)).
. Tex Occ.Code Ann. § 2153.357 (Vernon 2004) (criminal offense; obtaining license by fraud), added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999, (previously codified at TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 8817, § 8(2) (Vernon Supp.1993), Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 486, § 1.15, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 8817, § 8(2) (Vernon Supp.1990) (adding attempt), Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1096, § 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 8817, § 8(2) (Vernon 1984), Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 389, §§ 33, 39, eff. Jan. 1, 1982; TexRev.Civ. Stat., Title 122A, Taxation — General, art. 13.17, § 8(6) (Vernon Supp.1970), Acts 1969, 61st Leg., ch. 497, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1969); Tex Occ.Code Ann. § 2153.359(a)(2), (b) (Vernon 2004) (criminal offense; prohibited transactions), added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, § 1, eff. Sept. 1.1999 (previously codified at TexRev.Civ. Stat. art. 8817, § 26(l)-(3) (Vernon 1984), Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 389, §§ 33, 39, eff. Jan. 1, 1982, Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 770, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat., Title 122A, Taxation — General, art. 13.17, § 27(4) (Vernon Supp.1970), Acts 1969, 61st Leg., ch. 497, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1969).