Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. March 7, 1939 Honorable A. M. Pribble Opinion No. G-339 County Attorney Mill8 county Re: Residential and property qualifications Goldthwa,ite, Texas of elector in school consolidation elec- tion held under Art. 2806, R.C.S. 1925. Dear Sir: Under date February 10, 1939, you submitted three questions for dur coasLderation and opinion, involving certain school laws of Texas. Your third question is not related in subject matter to the first two, and for that reason will be answered in a separate opinion. Your first two ques- tions, which may be logically grouped in this opinion, are as follows: ‘1. Is it necessary for a voter to be a property owner if he is otherwise qualified to vote in a school consolidation elec- tion 7 “2. What is the time required to satisfy residence re- quirement to qualify a voter to vote in a school consolidation election 7 ” Article 288.6,Revised CfviI Statutes, g,overns the conditions, mode and manner of holding elections for the consolidation of several con- tiguous common school districts or independent school districts, such as involved in the two foregoing questions. But this governing statute is silent as to the property-holding and residential quaBficat.ions of electors in such school consolidation e&?&ions. and we must. consequently, turn to the auf- frage requirements and provisions written into the Organic Law and the gen- .eral statutes thereunder. .We shall, of course, assume that the persons offerfng to vote in these school consolidation elections do not fall within the five classes to which suffrange is denied under Artic,le 6, Section 1. Constitution of Texas. and that such persons are in al3 things qualified electors under the Constitu- tion and statutes generally, except insofar as their right to vote might be af- fected by the property-owning and residential qualifications involved in your .questions. . . . 1 Honorable A. M. Pribble, page 2 (O-339) qualifications of a voter in school consolidation elections, we find that this question is ma& to turn, by tha controlling constitutional provision and statutes declaratory thereof, upon the question of whether such school con- solidation election is ‘for the purpose of issuing bonds or otharwise lending r credit,$r credit, or expending money or assuming any debt,” upon the part of such school district or political subdivision, within the meaning and in- kndment of Section 3a, Article 6, Constitution of Texas, which read6 as fol- 1Qws: “When an eiection is held by any county, or any number of counties, or any political sub-division of the State, or any politi- cal sub-division of a county, or any deffned district now or here- after to be described and defined within the State and whfch may or’may not include towns, villages or municipal corporations, or any city, town or village, for’ the purpose of issuing bonds or other- wise lending credit, or expending money or assuming any debt, only qualified electors who own taxable property in the State, .county. political sub-division, district, city, town or village where such elec- tion is held, and who have .duly rendered the same for taxati& shall be qualified to vote and all electors shall vote in the election pre- ,cinct of their residence.” Prior to the adoption of the foregoing amendment to the Consti- tution of Texas on November 8, 1932, there were no express property-holding requirements for voters in elections involving the issuance of bonds. the levy of taxes, etc. in school districts and other defined districts and political subdivisions, but only property requirements for such elections in incorpo- rated cities and iMms, under Section 3. Article 6. Constitution of Texas. Article 2955a, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, is merely de- .claratory of Section 3x, Article 6, Constitution of Texas, and in fact fbl- lows the above-qftotpd language of such constitutional prwision word for word.~ Section 3a. Article 6, Constitution of Texas, was construed by the Court of Civil Appeals at El Paso in the Caseyof O’Brien, et al, v. Snelson, et al, 82 S.W.(2) 679, inaofar as same governs the qualifications of electors in school consolidation elections under Article 2806, Revised Civil Statutes.; The court held that the right to vote in such elections was not limited ‘to electors awning taxable property, which had been duly rendered for taxa- tion, since such election did not involve Ylending credit or expending money or assuming any debt” within this constitutional provision limiting right to vote to such electors, inasmuch as the election did not involve assumption by consolidated district of outstanding bonds of the old district. and another election would be required to determine whether taxes should be levied for consolidated district. Honorable A. hf. Pribble, page 8 (O-889) , The constitutional and statutory provisions above adverted to and the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals thereunder, conclusive- ly point to a negative answer to your first question But to avoid confusion and to properly limit this opinion, we strass that such negative answer pro- ceeds upon the assumption that the school consolidation election under in- quiry, Iihe that involved in the case discussed above, is for the purpose on- l~of voting a consolidation of school districts and does not embrace a vz on the assumption of outstanding bonds or the levy of taxes. Because, in this connection, we ,find that Article 2807. Revised Civil Statutes, allows the ques- tion of the assumption of outstanding bonds Of an old school district and Levy of taxes therefor. to be submitted to the voters, along with the question of the proposed consolidation of such school districts, all in the same election. While your letter does not so indicate, should the fact be that the election in question is for the twofold purpose of voting on the question Of.consolida- tion and upon the question of assumption of. bonds and levy of taxes, as per- mitted by Article 2807. Revised Civil Statutes, fhen we would be constrained to answer your question in the affirmative. .Turning now to your second inquiry. we find that same is like- wise foreclosed by the ~wstitution and statutes, and the authorities there- . .Jander. Section 2, Article .6. Conatitutioh of Texas, fixes the residential quali- fications and requirements of electors generally, as follows: “Every person subject to none of the foregoing disqusli- fications, who shall have attained the age of twenty-one years and who shall be a citizen of the United States and who shall have resided in this State one year next preceding an election and the last six months within the district or county in which such person offers to vote, shall be deemed a qualified elec- tor;... - Although this constitutional provision is self-enacting, the Leg- islature, by Article 2955, Revised Civil Statutes, fined residential require- ments for qualified electors in identical language, but added this further pro- vision: I . . . In any election held only in a subdivision of a county for the purpose of determining any local question or proposition affection only such subdivision of the county, then in addition to the foregoing qtilifications, the voter must have resided in said county for six months next pre- ceding such election . . . * Although there are certain constitutional and statutory provi- sions requiring an elector to vote in the election precinct of his residence, . ..-I Honorable A. M. Pribble. page 4 (O-339) there is no required length of time for such residence as a qualification for voting. The only requirements for length of residence as qualifications for suffrage have been hereinabove quoted. and we see they apply only to the State, district and county and not to precincts, political subdivisions or defined districts. This construction is sustained in the case of Warren, et al v. .Robinson. 32 S. W. 2d 871. involving a road district bond election, wherein the court overruled the contention that since the election was held only in a subdivision of a county, six months residence in such subdivision was re- quired by law. Our answer to your second question, therefore, is that an eLector otherwise qualified, may vote in a school consolidation election, under Article 2806. Revised Civil Statutes, if he shall have resided in this State .one year and in the county wherein such school districts lie, for six months next pre- ceding such election. Yours very truly ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS BY /s/ Pat M. Neff. Jr. Pat M. Neff, Jr. Assistant PMN:N:da APPROVED /s/ Gerald C. Mann ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS