Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

I OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN GROVER SELLERS .. Arroa~~ GENERAL . .Eonorable James k~. Crane DlStriCt Attorney confoe, Texas pear Sir: Opinion ITo. O-6546 Re: Does the defeat of ycw.r recent request for an knt reads in part as f 011w1s: time two simlta JO SUbdiVi- ’ . , a county-da6 id county-vii&e elec- : w was defeated, would substquently, hold in that same subdivision that votes it out)?? The splendid brief subndttcd with your rquest has been very helpful to the writer and in the absence of Texas ., \ - . 643 c i Boaorable James & Crane, Page 3 resultedIn the defeat of prohibition. It la oon- tended this defeat abrogated the law in rreolnot 0. In other words, lZ local option is legally in foroe in a proolnot, mode so by eleotlon in that proolnot, that a subooquent eleotlon, held for the ’ l entire oounty, resulting acalnst prohibition, has the efieot to repeal or abrogate looal option in that sold preolnot. To this proposition we oannot agree, By referenoe to the various provlslons of . the local option statutes we are informed that the. people of the entire county oannot express their views upon this subjoot so ns to defeat or ropeal local optlon In any subdivision OS the county, INor can the people OS a preolnot by vote dofoat prohlbltlon in any subdlvlslon of that precinct town or olty. The county may Soroe prohibition by .a vote over preolnots whloh are .not in Savor of it, and 50 may a preofnot over oltles, towns, or subdivisions thereof that may not be in Savor of it, but oannot force, by vote, repeal OS it in any town, city, or subdivision thereof. The people . ~ OS the county, outside OS the territory to be af’- * Seoted, have no right to vote at all as to the law in that oubdivlslon. Main, the people of the county have never voted on the proposltlon that l.,w,z’, gptlon should or should not prevail in Pre- . . They voted on the proposition whether prohibition should prevail in the whole. county. Great many voters might oppose prohibition Sor the county, and yet heartily eupport it for pre- olnots lnwhloh they have no polioe coroe, as well as Sor other reasons euttlolently oogent to their minds. * ? The rule in the Aaron’oase was reannounoed in faokeon V. State, :~ 118,s. %. (26) 313. :i’e think the reaeonlng in these cases is .i of equal Soroe ‘when applied to the stock law situation. The : najorlty of the voters in a oounty-wide eleotlon, votln& “for j the stook law* In the entire oounty, necessarily deternine by their vote that the law shall be effeotlve in every subdlvl- alon OS the county. On the other hand, where a majority in i a county-wide eleotlon, votes against the atook law Sor the i entire county, it cannot be said that the electors are llke- wise voting against tb stook law for eaoh and every mbdlvi- i sion OS the oounty., Certainly a voter might disravor the adoption OS the stook law in an entire oounty oomposed oS . ,.ii 644 ; Honorable James m. arane , page 4 both iarming and ranching areas, while at the same time favoring the adoption and enforoement of the law ln a eub- dlvlalon eultoble for farming only. ” + It seems to us that our views on this matter are strengthened by the Saot that Artlole 6964 provides in part that, wthe defeat OS the proposition for a county shell not prevent another oleotlon from being held immediately there- after for any subdivision OS suoh county, nor shall a defeat OS the proposition Sor any subdivision prevent an eleotlon from being held lmmedlately thereafter Sor the entire. 0ounty.w IS it had been intended by the Legislature that the defeat, OS tho stook law in a oounty eleotlon would result in the . creation of n oounty-wide status or oounty-wide repeal oS the stock ‘law, then it would seem senseless to authorize the immediate alteration of suoh a status by any subdivision. It la our ‘oonoluslon that ths defeat of ths atook law in your oountywould not alter the etatus OS any of its, subdivisions. Very truly yours = ‘ATTORN2X GXN?BALOF TEXAS EA:mp