Indeed, the supreme court has consistently held that courts "should avoid constructions that would render any constitutional provision meaningless or nugatory."

Rules of constitutional interpretation dictate that all clauses must be given effect. McLean, 725 SW 2d at 697-98

The court should not construe statutory language "in a way that renders it idle or inoperative"; it cannot presume that the legislature intended "a blatant redundancy."

Constitutional provisions must be interpreted in a manner to give effect to every phrase of the document; no provision ordinarily duplicates another, and provisions should not be interpreted so as to be rendered meaningless.

—but also because we should refuse, whenever possible, to construe constitutional language in a way that renders it idle or inoperative.

In construing these provisions, we apply accepted principles of statutory construction, these constitutional provisions having been carefully drafted by the Texas Legislature prior to their submission for approval by the voters of the state of Texas.

—and the absence of adequate facilities for the rendering of property eliminates the rendition requirement.

The court based its holding on the policy of reconciling apparent repugnancies in the Constitution and giving effect to every part of it.