holding that a councilman of a home rule city held an “office under this State” for purposes of article III, section 19, of the Texas Constitution because the position was created by the state constitution and performed duties imposed by the state
How later courts described this case
- holding that a councilman of a home rule city held an “office under this State” for purposes of article III, section 19, of the Texas Constitution because the position was created by the state constitution and performed duties imposed by the state
- concluding that a city council member who received $10 per diem for each regular meeting plus necessary expenses held a lucrative office for purposes of article III, section 19
- concluding that a city councilman is a municipal officer unless he is enforcing the general criminal laws of the state, at which time he acts as a state officer
- “The Legislature from time to time has passed laws controlling such Home Rule Cities. Such Home Rule Cities exist solely by virtue of the State Constitution and legislative enactments. These cities are therefore political and governmental subdivisions under this state.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEAKLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
I am preparing a dissenting opinion in Lee v. Daniels, Tex., 377 S.W.2d 618 , in support of my view that the accomplished resignation of Sam Jorrie as County Commissioner of Bexar County on February 1, 1964, removed his ineligibility to the Legislature under Section 19 of Article III and Section 12 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas. Section 16 of Chapter XXIV of the Charter of the City of Fort Worth provides that “If a member of the Council shall become a candidate for nomination or election to any public office, other than that of Councilman, he shall immediately forfeit his place in the Council; * * * ”
I would hold for the reasons to be stated in the dissenting opinion mentioned above that the immediate forfeiture of the office of City Councilman by the act of Doyle Willis in becoming a candidate for the office of State Senator removed his ineligibility for the Legislature. As I view the problem, the holding of a disqualifying office should be recognized as the consistent criteria of ineligibility in both Section 19 of Article III and Section 12 of Article XVI; otherwise, there will exist an irreconcilable conflict between these two constitutional provisions pertaining to eligibility to the Legislature.