The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX hgust 20, 1986
AttorneyGeneral
Supreme Court Building Honorable Bob Bush Opinion No. m-535
P. 0. Box 12548
Austin. TX. 78711. 2548
Chairman
51214752501 Committee on Judiciary Re: Whether the legislature may
Telex 910/874-1367 Texas House of Repreisentatives authorize a particular municipality
Telecopier 51214750286 P. 0. Box 2910 to impose additional court costs on
Austin, Texas 78769 convictions
714 Jackson, Suite 700
Dallas. TX. 75202.4508 Dear Representative :Bush:
2141742-8944
As chairman o:f the House of Representatives' Committee on
Judiciary you ask:
4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160
El Paso, TX. 79905.2793
915/5353464 May thpe legislature, without violating the
state 01: federal constitution, authorize a
particular city to impose an additional court cost
pl Texas. Suite 700 on a conviction in municipal court?
tston, TX. 77002.3111
.&?235666
We assume that you refer to legislation which would apply to one
particular municipality. You do not indicate which provisions of the
606 Broadway, Suite 312 state or federal constitution concern you.
Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479
8061747-5238
Your question implicates one provision of the Texas Constiiution
in particular. Art:lcle III, section 56, of the Texas Constitution
4309 N. Tenth, Suite B states that "[tlhe Legislature shall not , except as otherwise provided
McAllen, TX. 78501-1685 in this Constitution. pas* any local or special law" on certain
512,682.4547
enumerated subjects. These subjects include "[rlegulating the affairs
of . . . cities. . . .II Accordingly, we must determine whether the
200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 proposed act is a "local or special law" and whether it falls within a
San Antonio, TX. 78205-2797 constitutional exception from section 56.
512/2254191
The proposed legislation relates not just to the affairs of a
An Equal Opportunity/
particular city bllt to the city's municipal courts. The Texas
Affirmative Action Employer Constitution contains an exception to section 56 for the creation of
certain courts and for the prescription of their jurisdiction and
organization. See Tex. Const. art. V. 951, 7, 22; Tom Green County v.
Proffitt, 195 Sx2d 845 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1946, no writ). The
court in Tom Green C:ountyupheld an act which dealt with salaries for
official court repxters but which exempted the courts in counties
falling within a cf:rtainpopulation bracket. The court held that the
act was not controlled by article III, section 56, because the act
p. 2464
Honorable Bob Bush - Page 2 (JM-535)
fell within article V, section 1, as a law affecting the organization
of the courts. 195 S.W.2d 3’C 847.
Nevertheless, we believe that the instant case extends beyond the
creation, jurisdiction, ar.d organization of the courts. You ask
whether the legislature may grant a certain power to a particular city
-- the power to impose additional court costs on municipal court
convictions. The court in In re Johnson, 554 S.W.Zd 775 (Tex. Civ.
APP. - Corpus Christ1 197;').per curiam, case 1 writ ref'd n.r.e.;
case 2 writ dism'd per cu::Fam, 569 S.W.2d 882 (Tex. 1978). applied
article III, section 56, to a statute which authorized court reporters
to set their own fees, subject to the approval of the court. Although
this statute applied to an aspect of the functioning of the courts,
the court struck down the provision under article III, section 56:
Since the artlYLe is subject to unequal applica-
tion to litigants due to the fact that the fee
charged is sub:/ect to each individual court
reporter's fee scale and the individual detemina-
tion by each trial judge of what is a reasonable
amount, the article is in violation of Art. III,
956 of the Texas Constitution.
554 S.W.2d at 785. Accordjngly, we do not believe that the constitu-
tional judiciary exceptions would save the proposed legislation.
Moreover, the proposed legislation would apply to only one city.
Article III, section 56, does not prohibit all classifications which
treat cities differently. For example, Texas courts have upheld a
number of population bracket laws. See, e.g., Jones v. Alexander, 59
S.W.2d 1080 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1933). The vital test is whether the
classification is reasonably related to the differences in
circumstances that necessimrte the classification. Applying article
III, section 56, the court in Morris V. City of San Antonio, 572
S.W.2d 831, 833-34 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1978, no writ) stated:
Not only must a classification be broad enough
to include a substantial class based on character-
istics 1egitimatel:ydistinguishing that class from
others, but the legislation must be intended to
apply uniformly to all municipalities that may in
the future come within the classification desig-
nated. Miller v, El Paso County, 136 Tex. 370,
150 S.W.2d 1000 71941). In a case decided ten
years earlier than Miller the Supreme Court held a
statute invalid as a local or special law and
said, '. . . the act is so constructed that it is
absolutely imposc,iblefor any other city in the
state to ever be included within the terms or
p. 2465
,
Honorable Bob Bush - Page 3 (JM-535)
under the provisjons of the act.' City of Fort
Worth v. Bobbitt, 1121Tex. 14, 36 S.W.Zd 470, 471
(1931).
Your question involves a law which would, by its terms, apply to only
one city.
Consequently, we conclude that article III, section 56, prohibits
the Texas Legislature from enacting legislation which grants a
particular city the authorj.t,yto impose additional "court costs" on
convictions in municipal courts. We make no comment on whether such a
cost is correctly character:.zedas a court cost rather than as a fine.
We note that this type of legislation may also implicate equal
protection issues under the 'FourteenthAmendment to the United States
Constitution. Further, the 'TexasCode of Criminal Procedure contains
various provisions which go%!rn generally the fixing and collection of
costs and fines in justice and corporation courts. - See Tex. Code
Grim. Proc. arts. 45.01 - 4!i..54.
SUMMARY
Article III, section 56, of the Texas Constitu-
tion prohibits tht?Texas Legislature from enacting
legislation grar.ting .a particular city the
authority to impose additional ltcourt costs" on
convictions in mu:~icipalcourts.
JG&
Attorney General of Texas
JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Jennifer Riggs
Assistant Attorney General
p. 2466
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion