By: Burrows H.B. No. 2139
 
 
 
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
 
AN ACT
  relating to the construction of codes, laws, and statutes.
         BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
         SECTION 1.  Section 311.016, Government Code, is amended by
  amending Subdivisions (2) and (3) to read as follows:
               (2)  "Shall" imposes a duty and is synonymous with
  "must."
               (3)  "Must" imposes a duty and is synonymous with
  "shall." [creates or recognizes a condition precedent.]
         SECTION 2.  Section 311.021, Government Code, is amended to
  read as follows:
         Sec. 311.021.  INTENTIONALISM PROHIBITED [INTENTION IN
  ENACTMENT OF STATUTES]. (a) When interpreting a statute, a court
  is not to inquire into what members of the legislature intended or
  hoped to accomplish, but shall enforce the statutory text as
  written and in accordance with the meaning that the words of the
  statute would have to an ordinary speaker of the English language.
  See, e.g., Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Theory of Legal
  Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 419 (1899) ("We do not inquire , 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 419 (1899) ("We do not inquire
  what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statute means.")
  [In enacting a statute, it is presumed that:
               (1)  compliance with the constitutions of this state
  and the United States is intended;
               (2)  the entire statute is intended to be effective;
               (3)  a just and reasonable result is intended;
               (4)  a result feasible of execution is intended; and
               (5)  public interest is favored over any private
  interest].
         SECTION 3.  Section 311.023, Government Code, is amended to
  read as follows:
         Sec. 311.023.  RELIANCE ON LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PROHIBITED
  [STATUTE CONSTRUCTION AIDS]. (a) In construing a statute[,
  whether or not the statute is considered ambiguous on its face], a
  court may not under any circumstance consider consult, cite, rely
  upon, or give any weight to [among other matters the]:
               (1)  statements from individual legislators, including
  bill authors and sponsors [object sought to be attained];
               (2)  committee reports of any type [circumstances under
  which the statute was enacted];
               (3)  statements made in legislative hearings or floor
  debates [legislative history]; or
               (4)  signing statements [common law or former statutory
  provisions, including laws on the same or similar subjects;
               (5)  consequences of a particular construction;
               (6)  administrative construction of the statute; and
               (7)  title (caption), preamble, and emergency
  provision].
         SECTION 4.  Section 311.025, Government Code, is amended by
  amending Subsection (c) to read as follows:
         Sec. 311.025.  IRRECONCILABLE STATUTES AND AMENDMENTS.
         (c)  In determining whether amendments are irreconcilable,
  text that is reenacted because of the requirement of Article III,
  Section 36, of the Texas Constitution is not considered to be
  irreconcilable with additions or omissions in the same text made by
  another amendment. Unless clearly indicated to the contrary, an
  amendment that reenacts text in compliance with that constitutional
  requirement does not mean [indicate legislative intent] that the
  reenacted text prevails [prevail] over changes in the same text
  made by another amendment, regardless of the relative dates of
  enactment.
         SECTION 5.  Section 311.026, Government Code, is amended by
  amending Subsection (b) to read as follows:
         (b)  If the conflict between the general provision and the
  special or local provision is irreconcilable, the special or local
  provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless
  the general provision is the later enactment and clearly and
  unambiguously supersedes the special or local provision [the
  manifest intent is that the general provision prevail].
         SECTION 6.  Section 311.028, Government Code, is amended to
  read as follows:
         Sec. 311.028.  UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION OF UNIFORM ACTS. A
  uniform act included in a code shall be construed, when possible,
  [to effect its general purpose]to make uniform the law of those
  states that enact it.
         SECTION 7.  Section 311.032, Government Code, is amended by
  amending Subsections (a), (b), and (c) and adding Subsection (d) to
  read as follows:
         Sec. 311.032.  SEVERABILITY OF STATUTES AND SAVING
  CONSTRUCTIONS. (a) Unless a statute expressly includes a
  nonseverability clause, every provision, section, subsection,
  sentence, clause, phrase, and word of a statute, and every discrete
  application of a statutory provision, section, subsection,
  sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any person, group of persons,
  or circumstances, shall be severable from each other [If any
  statute contains a provision for severability, that provision
  prevails in interpreting that statute].
         (b)  If any application of any statutory provision, section,
  subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any person, group
  of persons, or circumstances is found by any court to be invalid,
  preeempted, or unconstitutional, for any reason whatsoever, then
  all remaining applications of that statutory provision, section,
  subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to all other persons
  and circumstances shall be severed and preserved, and shall remain
  in effect. All valid, non-preempted, and constitutional
  applications of any enacted statute shall be severed from any
  applications that a court finds to be invalid, preeempted, or
  unconstitutional, because it is the legislature's intent and
  priority that every valid, non-preempted, and constitutional
  application of its statutory enactments be allowed to stand alone
  and remain enforceable [statute contains a provision for
  nonseverability, that provision prevails in interpreting that
  statute].
         (c)  No court may decline to enforce the severability
  requirements of Subsections (a) and (b) on the ground that
  severance would "rewrite" the statute or involve the court in
  legislative or lawmaking activity. A court that declines to
  enforce or enjoins a state official from enforcing a statutory
  enactment, in whole or in part, is never rewriting a statute or
  engaging in legislative or lawmaking activity, as the statute
  continues to contain the same words as before the court's decision.
  A judicial injunction or declaration of unconstitutionality:
               (1)  is nothing more than an edict prohibiting
  enforcement of the disputed statute against the named parties to
  that lawsuit, which may subsequently be vacated by a later court if
  that court has a different understanding of the law;
               (2)  is not a formal amendment of the language in a
  statute; and
               (3)  no more rewrites a statute than a decision by the
  executive not to enforce a duly enacted statute in a limited and
  defined set of circumstances [In a statute that does not contain a
  provision for severability or nonseverability, if any provision of
  the statute or its application to any person or circumstance is held
  invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or
  applications of the statute that can be given effect without the
  invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of
  the statute are severable].
         (d)  If any state or federal court disregards any of the
  severability requirements in Subsections (a), (b), or (c), and
  declares or finds any statutory provision, section, subsection,
  sentence, clause, phrase, or word to be facially or totally
  invalid, preeempted, or unconstitutional, when there are discrete
  applications of that statutory provision, section, subsection,
  sentence, clause, phrase, or word that could be enforced against a
  person, group of persons, or circumstances without violating
  federal law or the federal or state constitutions, then that
  statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause,
  phrase, or word shall be interpreted, as a matter of state law, as
  if the legislature had explicitly limited its application to the
  persons, group of persons, or circumstances for which its
  application will not violate federal law or the federal or state
  constitutions, and every court shall adopt and apply this saving
  construction until the court ruling that pronounced the statutory
  provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word
  facially or totally invalid, preeempted, or unconstitutional is
  vacated or overruled.
         SECTION 8.  Section 311.034, Government Code, is amended to
  read as follows:
         Sec. 311.034.  WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY; JURISDICTIONAL
  REQUIREMENTS. (a) In order to preserve the legislature's interest
  in managing state fiscal matters through the appropriations
  process, a statute shall not be construed as a waiver of sovereign
  immunity unless the waiver is effected by clear and unambiguous
  language.
         (b)  In a statute, the use of "person," as defined by Section
  311.005 to include governmental entities, does not [indicate
  legislative intent to] waive sovereign immunity unless the context
  of the statute indicates no other reasonable construction.
         (C)  Statutory prerequisites to a suit, including the
  provision of notice, are jurisdictional requirements in all suits
  against a governmental entity.
         SECTION 9.  Subchapter C, Chapter 311, Government Code, is
  amended by adding Section 311.037 to read as follows:
         Sec. 311.037.  GRAMMATICAL AND SCRIVENER'S ERROR. (a) A
  grammatical or scrivener's error does not vitiate a law. If a
  statute contains a grammatical or scrivener's error that would be
  apparent to an ordinary reader of the English language, then the
  Court may interpret the statute in the way that an ordinary reader
  of the English language would understand the statute in light of the
  grammatical or scrivener's error.
         SECTION 9.  Section 312.005, Government Code, is amended to
  read as follows:
         Sec. 312.005.  INTENTIONALISM PROHIBITED [LEGISLATIVE
  INTENT]. When [In] interpreting a statute, a court is not to
  inquire into what members of the legislature intended or hoped to
  accomplish, but shall enforce the statutory text as written and in
  accordance with the meaning that the words of the statute would have
  to an ordinary speaker of the English language. See, e.g., Oliver
  Wendell Holmes, The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L.
  Rev. 417, 419 (1899) ("We do not inquire what the legislature meant;
  we ask only what the statute means.") [shall diligently attempt to
  ascertain legislative intent and shall consider at all times the
  old law, the evil, and the remedy].
         SECTION 10.  Section 312.006, Government Code, is amended to
  read as follows:
         Sec. 312.006.  RELIANCE ON LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PROHIBITED
  [LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION]. (a) In construing a statute, a court may
  not under any circumstance consider, consult, cite, rely upon, or
  give any weight to:
               (1)  statements from individual legislators, including
  bill authors and sponsors;
               (2)  committee reports of any type;
               (3)  statements made in legislative hearings or floor
  debates; or
               (4)  signing statements [The Revised Statutes are the
  law of this state and shall be liberally construed to achieve their
  purpose and to promote justice].
         SECTION 11.  Section 312.012, Government Code, is amended to
  read as follows:
         Sec. 312.012.  GRAMMATICAL AND SCRIVENER'S ERROR [GRAMMAR
  AND PUNCTUATION]. [(a)] A grammatical or scrivener's error does
  not vitiate a law. If a statute contains a grammatical or
  scrivener's error that would be apparent to an ordinary reader of
  the English language, then the Court may interpret the statute in
  the way that an ordinary reader of the English language would
  understand the statute in light of the grammatical or scrivener's
  error [the sentence or clause is meaningless because of the
  grammatical error, words and clauses may be transposed to give the
  law meaning.
         (b)  Punctuation of a law does not control or affect
  legislative intent in enacting the law].
         SECTION 12.  Section 312.013, Government Code, is amended by
  amending subsection (a) and (b) and adding Subsections (c) and (d)
  to read as follows:
         Sec. 312.013.  SEVERABILITY OF STATUTES AND SAVING
  CONSTRUCTIONS. (a) Unless a statute expressly includes a
  nonseverability clause, every provision, section, subsection,
  sentence, clause, phrase, and word of a statute, and every discrete
  application of a statutory provision, section, subsection,
  sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any person, group of persons,
  or circumstances, shall be severable from each other [expressly
  provided otherwise, if any provision of a statute or its
  application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
  invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the
  statute that can be given effect without the invalid provision or
  application, and to this end the provisions of the statute are
  severable].
         (b)  If any application of any statutory provision, section,
  subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any person, group
  of persons, or circumstances is found by any court to be invalid,
  preeempted, or unconstitutional, for any reason whatsoever, then
  all remaining applications of that statutory provision, section,
  subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to all other persons
  and circumstances shall be severed and preserved, and shall remain
  in effect. All valid, non-preempted, and constitutional
  applications of any enacted statute shall be severed from any
  applications that a court finds to be invalid, preeempted, or
  unconstitutional, because it is the legislature's intent and
  priority that every valid, non-preempted, and constitutional
  application of its statutory enactments be allowed to stand alone
  and remain enforceable [This section does not affect the power or
  duty of a court to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent
  concerning severability of a statute].
         (c)  No court may decline to enforce the severability
  requirements of Subsections (a) and (b) on the ground that
  severance would "rewrite" the statute or involve the court in
  legislative or lawmaking activity. A court that declines to
  enforce or enjoins a state official from enforcing a statutory
  enactment, in whole or in part, is never rewriting a statute or
  engaging in legislative or lawmaking activity, as the statute
  continues to contain the same words as before the court's decision.
  A judicial injunction or declaration of unconstitutionality:
               (1)  is nothing more than an edict prohibiting
  enforcement of the disputed statute against the named parties to
  that lawsuit, which may subsequently be vacated by a later court if
  that court has a different understanding of the law;
               (2)  is not a formal amendment of the language in a
  statute; and
               (3)  no more rewrites a statute than a decision by the
  executive not to enforce a duly enacted statute in a limited and
  defined set of circumstances.
         (d)  If any state or federal court disregards any of the
  severability requirements in Subsections (a), (b), or (c), and
  declares or finds any statutory provision, section, subsection,
  sentence, clause, phrase, or word to be facially or totally
  invalid, preeempted, or unconstitutional, when there are discrete
  applications of that statutory provision, section, subsection,
  sentence, clause, phrase, or word that could be enforced against a
  person, group of persons, or circumstances without violating
  federal law or the federal or state constitutions, then that
  statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause,
  phrase, or word shall be interpreted, as a matter of state law, as
  if the legislature had explicitly limited its application to the
  persons, group of persons, or circumstances for which its
  application will not violate federal law or the federal or state
  constitutions, and every court shall adopt and apply this saving
  construction until the court ruling that pronounced the statutory
  provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word
  facially or totally invalid, preeempted, or unconstitutional is
  vacated or overruled.
         SECTION 13.  The following provisions of the Government Code
  are repealed:
               (1)  Section 312.006(b); and
               (2)  Section 312.012(b).
         SECTION 14.  This Act takes effect immediately if it
  receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each
  house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.
  If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate
  effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2023.