So far, no bill has been introduced to clarify the meaning of article 62.003 (after it was misconstrued by a majority of the CCA in Crabtree). This is an urgent need as it is highly doubtful the statute is constitutional in delegating to a state agency the ability to define a statutory term (i.e., "substantially similar") at will and without public notice. In any event, the DPS can never hope to meet the duty the statute imposes.

The majority essentially encouraged legislative action in its opinion, implying that it agreed the solution chosen was not particularly wise and then stating: "If, through our restrained approach in interpreting the plain language enacted by the Legislature, we have exposed a
weakness in the state’s statutory scheme not intended by the Legislature, it has the ability to remedy it." Let's hope the remedy is forthcoming.

quote:

Originally posted by Martin Peterson:
Let's hope the remedy is forthcoming.

Good luck with that.