Texas House Bill HB2425

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/20/11
• Voted on by House: 5/12/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/21/11
• Report Pass: 4/14/11
• Voted on by Senate: 5/24/11
• Engrossed: 5/12/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 5/12/11
• Report Pass: 5/21/11
• Enrolled: 5/25/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to notice to the attorney general of challenges to the constitutionality of Texas statutes.

Impact

The implications of HB2425 could be far-reaching as it establishes a formal protocol for courts to engage the Attorney General regarding constitutional challenges. This requirement aims to reinforce the state's interests in maintaining the integrity of its statutes and provides a mechanism for the state to intervene in litigation that could impact the enforcement and interpretation of its laws. This could lead to more consistent legal outcomes across the state when such challenges arise, potentially reducing the number of statutes struck down by state courts.

Summary

House Bill 2425 aims to amend the Government Code by introducing a new section that requires courts to notify the Texas Attorney General when a party files a legal challenge questioning the constitutionality of a state statute. This provision mandates that if the Attorney General is not involved in the litigation, the court must serve notice of the constitutional question to the Attorney General, alongside a copy of the relevant documentation, through certified or registered mail or electronically. This process not only ensures that the Attorney General is alerted to potentially significant legal questions but also facilitates the state’s participation in such cases.

Conclusion

In summary, HB2425 represents an effort to bolster the role of the Attorney General in legal proceedings that question the constitutionality of state laws, potentially changing how such legal challenges are handled in Texas. The stipulations laid out in the bill aim to enhance state oversight in these cases while possibly raising concerns about access to justice and the expediency of legal recourse for citizens. The dialogue surrounding this bill may have implications for legislative processes and the balance of powers within the state.

Contention

While the bill's intent appears to be a protective measure for state statutes, there might be concerns regarding the speed and efficiency of the judicial process. Requiring a 45-day notice period before a court can declare a statute unconstitutional could delay justice for individuals or groups seeking to challenge a law they view as wrongful or unconstitutional. Critics may argue that this could inhibit timely rulings on significant constitutional matters, placing the interests of state bureaucracy over individual rights.