OFFICE OF TWE ATTORNEY GENERAL. OF TEXA5 .
. AUSTIN ’
B-G- .
Mummv- .
Honorable I?. C. I!cClaln
Dietrlct Attorney
Conroe, Texas
Dear Sk:
i
We are in recei
opinion in which you refe
1940, and sub&t the foll
fferent a8 to
who would be a voter to
by COW& board of
\\
COncideretion reads af? fd.10~8~
aXhenever a ms.Jority of the le&lu aunlif-
DrOr?erty tnm~ylnr voter6 residing in b-0 or I;)ort3
contiguous Comron School. Districts lying in tuo
or nore Counties dotire to conaolldate said contlg-
uous Conmon School Dletr?lcts for ochool purpose8
.
-
. .
Honorable W. C. +!cClaln, Page 2 .
.
.
only, they may do 80 by a petition elgned by
twenty or more of the qualifted texxpaying votera
In each Co;l?oon School Dletrlct, Presented to the
County Bo;.ra of School Trustee6 of the County
in which the CommonSchool DLstrlct is situated.
I* Q * The returns of said electIon shall
be made to the respective Eoards of County School
G’ruetee6 who shall declare the result and Zf the
.coneolLaation Is approved by a majority OS the
taxpaying voter6 of each CommonSchool District
ap$lping for consolidetlon’, the Boara of County
School Trustee6 of each County shall declare the
result * * s.”
_~_ -. --~. ,.
ArtIole 2206, R. C. S. 1225, which wa8 conetrued
by our Opinion h. O-339 read8 in Part 68 followe:
‘On the petition OS twenty (20) or a major-
ity of the legally aualifled voters OS each of
eeveral contiguous common school districts, or
contiguous independent school distrlcte, praying
for the coneolidatlon of such dlatricte for
school purposes, * * **
The different language employed in these two stat-
utes 16 readily apparent upon exemlnation; Article 2GOB re-
ferring to “legally quallfled votersn and Artlole 2?12b, Seo-
tlon Csa, using the terms #legally qualified property tax PRY-
ing VOter6’ and “qualified tax paying votcrsn. Dy reason
OS the difference in the u:ording of these two statutes they
Prcocrlbe different qunllfIcat;tiono for voter6 and Persona
signing petltions for consolidation.
It 1s noted that Article 2742b, Sectlon 5a, firat
states that ‘*when a majority of the legally quallfled ~r~r)-
!rty taxoayinz voters Q Q * deelre to conoolidaton; but %;hen
Qs%lng provision for the petition, it only requlros that t~he
skncrs be “qualiflerl taxpayIng votera.” In the next psra-
GrWh horrever the 6tatute provides that the eJectIon shall
result ln a consolidstlon if “approved by a majority of the
texxpaying voters. * ConsSderlng the statute aa a b-5ole we
&re of the o0lnlon that the Legislature did not Intend to
dra% a dlstinction between nqualif ied prooerty taxpaying
.
,
Honorable If. 0. WXain, Page 3
a.
roterc” and mqudlflea tnxpaylng votersa, if such d’lstlnc-
tion my be drewn, but used them In the awne am&e ma in
each instance hacl rcferenc e to “property taxpaying voters.’
It 18 our o?inlon that auf’ construction of Article
2806, 3. c. s. 1925, es ma9e in Opinion X0. O-339( is not
applic&le to Section 5a of Article 2742b, Vernon o Texas
Civil Statutes, p.n9 that si~nere of the petition grovlded
In the latter otatute munt bf: legally qmllfied property
tex paying voters residing Lh the comon sohool distrlota
to be consolidated.
Yours very truly
AWORN~Y Gi?NEQL OF TEXAS
AsslEtant
CCC:LM