Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

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