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