BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 113

By: Vasut

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Chapter 311, the Code Construction Act, and Chapter 312, Construction of Laws, of the Government Code provide standards for interpreting the codified and uncodified statutes, respectively, passed by the legislature. The bill author has informed the committee that these current interpretive standards permit inquiry in the legislature's intent when passing legislation beyond the statutory text in certain circumstances, including by reference to legislative history. C.S.H.B. 113 seeks to ensure that what the legislature passes is interpreted as it is written by, among other provisions, clarifying the definitions of "shall" and "must" under the Code Construction Act; prohibiting a court from inquiring into the intent of the legislature when interpreting statute; requiring that a court interpret statute using only the common, ordinary meaning that the words had to an ordinary speaker of the English language at the time of the statute's enactment unless the statute clearly indicates a different result; prohibiting a court from using legislative history except to determine a statute's ordinary meaning commonly understood at the time of enactment; and prohibiting courts from deferring to a state agency's construction of statute while allowing a court to consider an agency interpretation that is reasonable and does not conflict with the plain language of the statute.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 113 amends the Government Code to revise the Code Construction Act and other statutory provisions governing the construction of laws.

Code Construction Act

"Shall" and "Must"

C.S.H.B. 113 revises provisions of the act relating to construction of the words "shall" and "must" by establishing that the use of "shall" does not indicate that an action is discretionary and by changing the specification that "must" creates or recognizes a condition precedent to a specification that "must" imposes a requirement and either creates a duty or creates or recognizes a condition precedent.

Intentionalism Prohibited

C.S.H.B. 113 prohibits a court, when interpreting a statute, from inquiring into what members of the legislature intended to accomplish by enacting the statute. The bill requires a court, when interpreting a statute, to enforce the statutory text as written and in accordance with the common, ordinary meaning that the words of the statute had to a reasonable speaker of the English language at the time of the statute's enactment unless the statute clearly indicates a different result.

Use of Legislative History Prohibited

C.S.H.B. 113 prohibits a court, when interpreting a statute, from considering, consulting, citing, relying on, or giving any weight to the following elements of legislative history, except when determining the statute's ordinary meaning commonly understood at the time of the statute's enactment:

· any statement from an individual legislator, including a statement by the author or sponsor of the bill that enacted the statute or a statement made during a committee hearing or debate of the bill on the floor of a house of the legislature;

· a committee report; or

· a statement of a presiding officer or that the governor made on the signing of the bill.

Deference to Agency Construction Prohibited

C.S.H.B. 113 prohibits a court from giving deference to any construction of a statute by a state agency responsible for administering, implementing, or enforcing the statute, notwithstanding any other law. This provision expressly does not prohibit a court from considering a state agency's construction of a statute if that construction is reasonable and does not conflict with the plain language of the statute.

Grammatical or Scrivener's Errors

C.S.H.B. 113 establishes that a grammatical or scrivener's error does not vitiate a law. If the sentence or clause is meaningless because of a grammatical or scrivener's error apparent to an ordinary reader of the English language, a court may interpret the statute consistent with the understanding of the statute by an ordinary reader of the English language.

Removal of Intent and Purpose References

C.S.H.B. 113 revises certain provisions of the act to remove references to intent or purpose as follows:

· replaces the statement that an amendment that reenacts text in compliance with the constitutional requirement to do so does not indicate legislative intent that the reenacted text prevail over changes in the text made by another amendment, unless clearly indicated to the contrary, with the statement that such a reenactment does not indicate a legislative judgment that the reenacted text prevails in that manner;

· changes the circumstances under which a general provision that is enacted after a special or local provision with which it is irreconcilable prevails from those in which the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail to those in which the general provision plainly supersedes the special or local provision;

· replaces the requirement for a uniform act in a code to be construed to effect its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states that enact it with a requirement for the act to be construed in a manner that makes such law uniform; and

· replaces the statement that use in a statute of "person," as defined under the act to include governmental entities, does not indicate legislative intent to waive sovereign immunity unless the context of the statute indicates no other reasonable construction with the statement that such use does not indicate a legislative judgment that sovereign immunity is waived unless context so indicates.

Severability

C.S.H.B. 113 removes a provision of the act establishing that, 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. Instead, the bill establishes the following:

· unless a statute contains a provision expressly providing for nonseverability, every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word of the statute, including every discrete application of that provision or provision part to any person, group of persons, or circumstance, is severable;

· if any application of any statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to any person, group of persons, or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, preempted, or unconstitutional, regardless of the reason, all remaining applications of that provision or provision part to any other person, group of persons, or circumstance shall be severed and preserved and remain in effect; and

· it is the legislature's intent that every valid, non-preempted, and constitutional application of its statutory enactments be allowed to stand alone and remain enforceable.

Construction of Business Organizations Code

C.S.H.B. 113 establishes that the plain meaning of the text of the Business Organizations Code may not be supplanted, contravened, or modified by the laws or judicial decisions of any other state.

Repeal of Statute Construction Aids Provision

C.S.H.B. 113 repeals a provision of the act authorizing a court to consider the following matters in construing a statute, whether or not the statute is considered ambiguous on its face:

· the object sought to be attained;

· the circumstances under which the statute was enacted;

· the legislative history;

· the common law or former statutory provisions, including laws on the same or similar subjects;

· the consequences of a particular construction;

· the administrative construction of the statute; and

· the title (caption), preamble, and emergency provision.

Construction of Laws

C.S.H.B. 113 adds provisions under the construction rules for civil statutes relating to the topics of prohibited intentionalism, use of legislative history, and deference to agency construction that are identical to the previously described provisions on these topics added by the bill under the Code Construction Act.

C.S.H.B. 113 revises statutory provisions regarding the construction of laws generally that relate to grammar and punctuation and to the severability of statutes to make them identical to the previously described provisions regarding grammatical or scrivener's errors and severability, respectively, added by the bill under the Code Construction Act. In doing so, the bill removes the following provisions of current law relating to those topics:

· provisions authorizing the transposition of words and clauses to give meaning to a law that would otherwise be meaningless due to a grammatical error and establishing that punctuation of a law does not control or affect legislative intent in enacting the law; and

· provisions establishing the following with respect to severability:

o unless 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; and

o such establishment of severability does not affect the power or duty of a court to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent concerning severability of a statute.

C.S.H.B. 113 repeals the following provisions relating to the construction of laws:

· the requirement for a court, in interpreting a civil statute, to diligently attempt to ascertain legislative intent and consider at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy; and

· provisions establishing that the Revised Statutes are state law, must be liberally construed to achieve their purpose and to promote justice, and are exempt from the common law rule requiring strict construction of statutes in derogation of the common law.

Repealer Citations

C.S.H.B. 113 repeals the following provisions of the Government Code:

· Section 311.023;

· Section 312.005; and

· Section 312.006.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2025.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 113 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

Prohibited Intentionalism

Whereas the introduced required a court, when interpreting a statute, to enforce the statutory text in accordance with the meaning that the words of the statute would have to an ordinary speaker of the English language, the substitute requires the court to enforce the statutory text in accordance with the common, ordinary meaning that the words of the statute had to a reasonable speaker of the English language at the time of the statute's enactment unless the statute clearly indicates a different result.

Use of Legislative History Prohibited

With respect to the prohibition against a court considering, consulting, citing, relying on, or giving any weight to certain elements of legislative history when interpreting a statute, the substitute provides an exception to the prohibition when the court is determining the statute's ordinary meaning commonly understood at the time of the statute's enactment, whereas the introduced did not.

Deference to Agency Construction Prohibited

The introduced established that a court is not required to give deference to any construction of a statute by a state agency responsible for administering, implementing, or enforcing the statute, whereas the substitute prohibits a court from giving such deference.

Grammatical or Scrivener's Errors

Both the introduced and substitute provide for a court's authority to interpret a statute with a grammatical or scrivener's error apparent to an ordinary reader of the English language consistent with the understanding of the statute by an ordinary reader of the English language. However, the introduced specified that a court construing a statute containing such an error has that authority, whereas the substitute specifies that a court has that authority if the sentence or clause is meaningless because of the error.

Removal of Intent and Purpose References in Act

Both the introduced and substitute remove certain references to intent or purpose from provisions of the Code Construction Act and replace the references with other language, but the versions differ as follows:

· with respect to the statement in current law that an amendment that reenacts text in compliance with the constitutional requirement to do so does not indicate legislative intent that the reenacted text prevail over changes in the text made by another amendment, unless clearly indicated to the contrary:

o the introduced replaced it with the statement that such a reenactment does not mean that the reenacted text prevails in that manner; whereas

o the substitute replaces it with a statement that such a reenactment does not indicate a legislative judgment that the reenacted text prevails in that manner;

· with respect to the circumstances under which a general provision that is enacted after a special or local provision with which it is irreconcilable prevails:

o the introduced changed the circumstance to those in which the general provision clearly and unambiguously supersedes the special or local provision; whereas

o the substitute changes the circumstance to those in which the general provision plainly supersedes the special or local provision;

· with respect to the requirement in current law for a uniform act in a code to be construed to effect its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states that enact it:

o the introduced replaced it with a requirement for the act to be construed, when possible, to makes such law uniform; whereas

o the substitute replaces it with a requirement for the act to be construed in a manner that makes such law uniform; and

· with respect to the statement in current law establishing that the use in a statute of "person" does not indicate legislative intent to waive sovereign immunity unless the context of the statute indicates no other reasonable construction:

o  the introduced replaced it with the statement that such use does not waive sovereign immunity unless context so indicates; whereas

o the substitute replaces it with the statement that such use does not indicate a legislative judgment that sovereign immunity is waived unless context so indicates.

Severability and Saving Constructions

The substitute omits the provisions of the introduced that did the following:

· prohibited a court from declining to enforce the severability requirements established by the bill on the grounds that the severance would rewrite the statute or involve the court in legislative or lawmaking activity;

· established that a court that declines to enforce, or that enjoins a state official from enforcing, wholly or partly, a statute is not considered to be rewriting a statute or engaging in legislative or lawmaking activity because the statute continues to contain the same words as before the court's decision;

· established that a judicial injunction or declaration of unconstitutionality:

o is only an edict prohibiting enforcement of the disputed statute against the parties to that lawsuit and may subsequently be vacated by a higher court based on a different understanding of the law;

o is not a formal amendment of the language in a statute; and

o does not rewrite the statute any more than a decision by the executive not to enforce a duly enacted statute in a limited and defined set of circumstances;

· established that if a court, in violation of the introduced version's provisions regarding severability, declares or finds any statutory provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word to be facially or totally invalid, preempted, or unconstitutional, when there are discrete applications of that statutory provision or provision part that could be enforced against a person, group of persons, or circumstance without violating federal law or the federal or state constitutions, then that statutory provision or provision part shall be interpreted, as a matter of state law, as if the legislature had explicitly limited its application to the person, group of persons, or circumstance for which its application will not violate federal law or the federal or state constitutions; and

· required every court to adopt and apply that saving construction until the court ruling declaring the statutory provision or provision part facially or totally invalid, preempted, or unconstitutional is vacated or overturned.

Construction of Business Organizations Code

The substitute includes a provision absent from the introduced establishing that the plain meaning of the text of the Business Organizations Code may not be supplanted, contravened, or modified by the laws or judicial decisions of any other state.

Repealed Provisions

The introduced repealed the following provisions of the Code Construction Act, whereas the substitute does not:

· provisions establishing that in enacting a statute, the following is presumed:

o compliance with the Texas Constitution and the U.S. Constitution is intended;

o the entire statute is intended to be effective;

o a just and reasonable result is intended;

o a result feasible of execution is intended; and

o public interest is favored over any private interest; and

· provisions establishing that if any statute contains a provision for severability or for nonseverability, that provision prevails in interpreting the statute.

The introduced repealed and replaced certain other statutory provisions relating to severability and to grammar and punctuation, while the substitute revises those provisions in a manner that is substantially the same as the introduced version's repeal and replacement.