Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 4: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|recent= | |recent= | ||
* ''Hensley v. State Comm'n on Jud. Conduct'', 692 S.W.3d 184, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4865454919474533790#p208 208] (Tex. 2024) (J. Blacklock, concurring) ("If the Judicial Conduct Commission is correct—that is, if | * ''Hensley v. State Comm'n on Jud. Conduct'', 692 S.W.3d 184, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4865454919474533790#p208 208] (Tex. 2024) (J. Blacklock, concurring) ("If the Judicial Conduct Commission is correct—that is, if Obergefell ushered in an era in which judges who publicly espouse traditional Christian beliefs are unfit for the robe—then yet another deeply rooted constitutional principle . . . . Judge Hensley has been the target of a punitive administrative apparatus with the power, ultimately, to exclude her from holding office. This has happened 'on account of [her] religious sentiments'—not on account of rude or insulting or unprofessional words or actions towards anybody of any sexual orientation.") | ||
|historic= | |historic= |
Revision as of 11:10, June 21, 2025
Adopted February 15, 1876:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Editor Comments
Sections 4 through 7 of Article I, including the recently adopted Section 6-a, concern religion.
Due either to the plain language of the provision or to state court decisions interpreting the provision, the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the state constitution sometimes differs from the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the federal constitution.
For example, under this section, a person who fails to "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" is not eligible to hold public office in Texas. However, that requirement violates the federal constitution and is therefore unenforceable. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) (holding that similar provision contained in Maryland Constitution violated federal constitution).
Recent Decisions
- Hensley v. State Comm'n on Jud. Conduct, 692 S.W.3d 184, 208 (Tex. 2024) (J. Blacklock, concurring) ("If the Judicial Conduct Commission is correct—that is, if Obergefell ushered in an era in which judges who publicly espouse traditional Christian beliefs are unfit for the robe—then yet another deeply rooted constitutional principle . . . . Judge Hensley has been the target of a punitive administrative apparatus with the power, ultimately, to exclude her from holding office. This has happened 'on account of [her] religious sentiments'—not on account of rude or insulting or unprofessional words or actions towards anybody of any sexual orientation.")
Historic Decisions
None.
Library Resources
- Vernon's Annotated Constitution of the State of Texas (this multi-volume and up-to-date resource is available at all law libraries and many municipal libraries)
- The Texas State Constitution: A Reference Guide (this one-volume resource is available at most law libraries and some municipal libraries)
- The Constitution of the State of Texas: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis (this two-volume resource is available at most law libraries and some municipal libraries)
Online Resources
- Constitution of the State of Texas (1876) (this resource is published and maintained by the University of Texas School of Law)
- Amendments to the Texas Constitution Since 1876 (this resource is published and regularly updated by the Legislative Council)
- Reports Analyzing Proposed Amendments (this resource is published and regularly updated by the Legislative Reference Library)