Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

T~CA~ORNEYGENERAT~ OF TEXAS AWESTIN. TRXAEI 78711 March 5. 1975 The Honocable M. L. Brockette Opinion No. H- 545 Comminaioner of Education Texan Education Agency Re: Constitutionality and 201 East 11th Street effect of House Bill 1358. Austin, Texas 78701 63rd Legislature. Dear Dr. Brockstte: You have requerted our opinion regarding the conrtitutionality of House Bill 1358, Chapter 206 (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 477), which purports to abolirh in Garza County and four other counties the office of county school ruperintendentand the county board of school trustees. You inquire further of rome of the effects in Garza County if the etatute is feurid to be valid. Heure Bill 1358 proclaimr that: The office of county superintendent of schoolr and the county board of school trustees in Terry County, Garza County, Dawson County, Angelina County, and Henderron County are .~.. abolished. The Bill purport8 to transfer the county superintendent’s dutiee to the ruperintendentr of the various independent school dirtricts in each county. The objection to thir legialation ir that it is a local or special law, exprersly prohibited by the Texas Conatitutio_n, whichprovides~in.article_ 3, section 56 that “[tjhe Legislature shall not, except aa otherwise provided in thin Conrtitution, pals any local or special law . . . [rlegulating the affairs of counties, cities, towna, wardr or rchool diatricta.” Had Garza County alone been the subject of House Bill 1358, it ia apparent that the p. 2453 The Honorable M. L. Brockette page 2 (H- 545) measure would be unconstitutional, just as was the 63rd Legislature’s purported abolition of the office of county school rupreintendent in Wheeler County. Attorney General Opinion H-52 (1973). It would seem unrearonable to peimit the Legislature to avoid this prohibition merely by including five counties within a single statute. In any event there is ampIe authority for holding House Bill 1358 a local or special law. In Rios v. State, 288 S. W. 2d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955), the Court of Criminal Appeals struck down a statute which provided that jurors should be selected by jury commissioners rather than by the jury wheel ayetern in countlen comprising the 25th Judicial District and the Special 25th Judicial District. The statute was applicable to only three “’ counties, and its “effect . . . was to take the counties of Guadalupe, Lavaca and Gonzales out of the jury wheel ‘system. ” 288 SW.‘2d at 78. The Court u&s able to see “no escape from the conclusion that the act . i’. . is a special law” and therefore unconstitutional. A similar statute was held invalid in Heflin v. Wilson, 297 S. W. 2d 864 (Tex. Civ. App. --Beau- mont 1956). In this case, the law was limited in its application -to Angelina, Cherokee and Nacogdoches counties. We must conclude that House Bill 1358 is a special or local law purporting S ,0 regulate’the affairs of counties in contravention of article 3, section 56 of the Texas Constitution. Since the statute does not therefore act to abolish the office of county school superintendent and the county school board of Garza County, it is unnecessary to address ourselves to your other questions. ,. S.UMMARY House Bill 1358, which purports to abolish the office of county school superintendent and the county board of school trurtees in Garsa County, is a local or special law pertaining to’s school district, and is therefore unconstitutional. /I~ Attorney General of Texas v p. 2454 The Honorable M. L. Brockette page 3 (H- 545) KENDALL, First Assistant C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee p. 2455