We have discovered that the legislature has adopted four versions of section 35.58 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code in 2003. Two of the four appear to have some impact on county government. SB 611 and SB 473 diverge when dealing with whether the county may print social security numbers. SB 611 includes the government as of March 1, 2005. SB 473 exempts the government from the prohibition, however its effective date is January 1, 2005. Did the legislature intend to give government a two month grace period? It appears both were approved by on June 1, 2003. One time I remarked to an appellate court justice that it seemed unfair to base our legal interpretation on the last date of passage. Has unfairness creeped into this issue also?

Since the "last passed" rule doesn't seem to be of assistance, I think an argument could be made that section 311.026, Government Code (special law controls over general in case of irreconcilable conflict) settles the issue. More particularly, of the two provisions concerning "Confidentiality of Social Security Number," SB 473 appears to be the more specific, since it expressly addresses nonapplicability to the government, a governmental subdivision or agency. By contrast, HB 611 includes the government within its scope only through the sweeping definition of "person" found in section 311.005(2) of the Government Code. Concurrently, it may be argued that SB 473 demonstrates a clear, express legislative intent to exclude governmental entities from the scope of the statutory proscriptions regarding social security numbers, while SB 611 at most includes governmental entities by indirect, implicit use of terminology. Moreover, statutory construction canons require that both provisions be given effect, if possible. Excluding governmental entities has no real impact on SB 611, but canceling the governmental exclusion of SB 473 vitiates a considerable quantum of its express provisions. To give both effect, then, the logical reading is to apply SB 473 as an exception to SB 611, at least insofar as governmental entities are affected. Or we could heed the words of an old Potter County JP: "Don't you bring that lawyer bag of tricks into my courtroom, son."

Scott, so you are not a big fan of the two month grace period. I seem to remember a case where the time of day determined which act was the later in enactment. But I could not find it during my quickie legal research. By the way I thought that JP was from Lubbock. One of my first appearances as a licensed attorney was before a JP in Lubbock that started very similar to your experience.
Well I appreciate the perspective from the Plains even though I deserted it years ago.