Texas Open Meetings Act-One Provision Struck Down by Criminal Court of Appeals


 

Texas Open Meetings Act-One Provision Struck Down by Criminal Court of Appeals
 


28 February 2019 at 10:09:50 AM
salon

PDF

Part excerpted below in the question of whether part of TOMA is unconstitutionally vague.

A provision of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) makes it a crime if a member or group of members of a governmental body “knowingly conspires to circumvent this chapter by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations in violation of this chapter.” We 1 conclude that this provision is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the prosecution.

...We have a duty to employ a reasonable narrowing construction to avoid a constitutional violation, but we can employ such a construction only if the statute is readily susceptible to one. 74 We may not rewrite a statute that is not subject to a narrowing construction, because such a rewriting “constitutes a serious invasion of the legislative domain.” A statute is readily subject to a 75 narrowing construction only “if the language already in the statute can be construed in a narrow manner. Adding language to a statute is legislating from the bench.” Even when faced with a 76 vague statute, we will not impose a narrowing construction when one “would add significant content not now present in the statute and could be fashioned in a number of different ways.” In 77 considering a narrowing construction, we should take into account that vague laws, even when not overtly invidious, “invite the exercise of arbitrary power . . . by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.”78 We do not doubt the legislature’s power to prevent government officials from using clever tactics to circumvent the purpose and effect of the Texas Open Meetings Act. But the statute before us wholly lacks any specificity, and any narrowing construction we could impose would be just a guess, an imposition of our own judicial views. This we decline to do. F. Conclusion In light of the above discussion, we conclude that § 551.143 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday struck down a key provision of the state’s Open Meetings Act, finding the section that makes it a crime for government officials to meet secretly to discuss the public’s business is “unconstitutionally vague.”

The ruling makes such violations no longer punishable as crimes in Texas, so long as the meetings do not involve a majority of a governing board such as a school district, city council or county commission.

“The court stuck a knife into the heart of the Open Meetings Act,” said Joe Larsen, a board member of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas who has worked on the case. “It’s the real world where the consequences are going to be backroom deals hidden from the public.”

 

Permalink Tags:          
     Views: 144 
Latest Blog Post by salon -Trump Attacks Medicare and Farmers - His Budget Requests
More Posts You Might Enjoy
Mel LeBlanc of Arlington Seeks to Justify Closed Back Door Meetings Away from the Public Eye
Texas Open Meetings Lawsuit- Federal Judge Dismisses 4 Cities from Lawsuit (July 28 2010)
Interesting Texas Senate Hearing on Open Meetings on May 11 2010 in Austin

 You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot

 Not registered? Or you can login!

LOGON - Name:Password:

New poster comments are moderated, meaning they won't show up until approved... or not.  Be patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting



Click Here for Main Page






Latest Posts

Trump Attacks Medicare and Farmers - His Budget Requests
salon 3/12/2019

Sunshine Week 2019 and Anti-Slapp Law in Texas
salon 3/12/2019

Trump the Serial Liar's Swamp for 3/1/2019
salon 3/1/2019

Turk Case Update- Telephone Conference Hearing Set for March 8 2019
salon 2/28/2019

Hah! There are seriously people that believe God appointed immoral unethical Trump
salon 2/28/2019

Texas Open Meetings Act-One Provision Struck Down by Criminal Court of Appeals
salon 2/28/2019


More Blog Headlines
 



Comments

salon > Quick update on this, via Pacer-Click on pic to see larger (Turk Case Update- Telephone Conference Hearing Set for March 8 2019 )

salon > Lance Been awhile. Send me an email at salon@glenrose.net with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks.  I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood. Is Jacene still involved?   I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )








Home | Blog Home | About | News | Piazza | Calendar | Audio/Video/Open Rec | Search
Write!  |profile | quotes |
top Daily | top Weekly |top Month | top Year | Top All! | archives | subscribe RSS

 

%>