i!
).
!C.
.,
OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN
&- '235
r.nILD
c. MANN
,m.call"
.nll8mAL
Hares T* lB*
CtiOn8 h the fOlhWi.ng pO~%tia8~ SUb
(1) th8 prrrttre countyt (2) a ~ustice*s
orated city m? tom.
of the Liquor Control Aot prov&des the C8iu-
f+ each eouaty in the 8tateupon itsovamo-
t1on order 8u d8Otbn for the rjbolecounty; b?atupon petl-
*ion 90 ten per cent of the qxalified voters of the aotmtJ .ar
or any fustiee precilnct, city oc tom *it shall order mieh
election for such politlosl subdivision. PW;iaed, houaper,
*titer- the eirst local optSon eleotbn held 8s pmwided ia
this Aaf, ia any oaunty, 1U8tiUe prec at, %tmorporated tom
or aity, ne subseqpient eleotion e
psme poli$&al sululivfsion sbaZ1 be heId wSth3.n One (1) Year
'Eoni Bert Ford, Namsh rD leog, Page a
Tlk appellate oourts have oonstmed the local option
eleotion statutes to proteot the Wry* status of the smalls*
titiee of the vhole0 In other in3
mains wry". TtELshasbsenheldtrueevenwhere the state
liquor control board h8s gmrited a pennit, such pexmitbedug
of no legal efieot. See Pouall vs. %nlth @iv. App.) Go t3.T.
(2d) 042, citing many autharlties, ~espeoidlly the Sqmeme
Court aa8es ot Walling v- Xin& 87 8.S.~ (2d) 1074 and Colcer v.
Bhreioa.'ST SO lL (ad) lOu)7& We quote:
Vhere local opt&u se* adopted in auy
g&Wan lo@ttyp by the m8pr%ty Of th0 Voter8 .
thereoi, It sill remain in Pome until the
quallf36d voters of suoh particular sub-
division deoide othemise ti an election
held for that plll3)08e." (Powall VS. s%uPtht
8W-)*
Where a county-wide eJection h&s beon conduoted and
resulted in a majority vote sgainst legallziug sale 0P liquor,
a local option election Sn a justIceto prealuot at vhleh a
majority voted to legskiae the tie of beer lsvoib llayhew
ve Qsrrett, eo 8. w. (Za) 1x04, wror r6Pused. But the Pail-
ure of' nn ontire county to adopt prohibition does not prevent
the holding of au election inamdiataly thereafter in a precafnct
to detcmine whether 10083 option should be adopted thkmrlu.
CoPield ve. Urltton, 108 8. Wd 4@3;- GrIPPIn to !Sucker, 1lS S-7.
83& .
In the ease of GrlPPiu v* Tucker, euprs, the Supreme
Court held a'larger subdirieion might hold an eleetlon irrea-
pective of the status of the sualler subfiivi8lone therein.
In that case loual optian had prevaIled in a justise*e pre-
cinct, but au election was subsequently called in a cam-
missionor~8 precinct whiuh exnbraced within its territorial
limits the justioers prealnot. The court saidr
*It, is true that, when the prohibitery
rule is put in Poroe, It cannot be repealed
or displaced eseept by thevete of the die-
triot which adoptedit. It 18 quite as true
thircauelprotioo, hoveverresultiag, in8
larger indud+ng subdipision hns no m0h
effeat. If it results In the defeat~of prehi-
bktdon# the mile x=cnmbs uuafpected in the
texvxltory that had before 8dopted 'it, If it
result in the 8deptloa of pmhSbit&cm, that
rule is extended to the whole, where bePore
it Wna in Poroe Only, in 8 put OS the terri-
t-r... We 865 nothing in the statute or the
t%net%tUthW.Iby fOrI% Of Vhhh the tight Of 8
Subdh~8~n fo h8Ve 8&n&e&don throughout its
eutentm8ybet8keu avaybythe 8etlon of prvt
or ita territory t3oastitating a mailer oue...e
Ia a.loCd option lStedkba~ election, it was h&l
that the Sa6t a f.omisslaner*a pm&net lno2uded.e otty which
&8d theretoforeedopted the *8teek La+ did uot vender the
eileotion'ioid. tambsrt VI dtourloak, 285 8. WI t399# B1shop.v.
State, 167 S..lL 365
Based upon the authorities oited, we are of opinion,
and you arfxaoeordlngly 8dvlsedl that a local option eleotion
msy be held in a mt to determine whether to'pro-
h&bit or legdlZ6 the s8le OP beer oontaiaing in SXWSS of
Pour per ceut by weight, regardless of the fact there is dth-
in the preoiuct a oity vhich Voted less thau one year ago to
prohibit the sale of this type of beer.1 If the election re-
s&t8 in a msjority of the voters of th
lug the prohAblt&on, the entire ju8tiO
~sw insofar 88 th8t type OS beverage is conmrned; if ",
rsble.fo ssle of such alcohollo beverage,
3tS$%SZP the oity will rentalu as it now is, uutil
and unless another election be held within and for enid oity
oh8ugiug its status. In such eveut that part of the juStice%
pretluot~outside the limit8 of such oity vfll be *veta to the
extent tbst sales of beer not exceeding four per cent alcohol
by weight will be legsl.
71th rePerenoe to the fom of ballot to be used, ve
refer you to Artfole 666-40 of Veruon*s &uiot8ted Peual Code.
IOU state the wunty has already Voted to 1egalZze
3.2 beer. lo presume this '*a8 done 8t a tfme when the legal
definition of the 3.2 beverage was sbeerv. That Statutory
definition ha8 einoe been repealed aud Me law now effeot-
iye passed, vhioh present statute defines beer to meau a
u8lt beverage which cantaitns not more than four (4%) per cou-
turn alcohol by *eight. We thluk the case of Akers v. Raalngtou,
. 115 l5. &L (Zd) 714, authority to the effeot another wuuty eleo-
Xou~~~tetateinyourletter.~etheraayeileotion
has BTW bee~~held within am¶ for the just&t+*6preclnot a8
au@& 33 &~ch be the case, lnasmueh.aa the ea+~aibeerle
lega lu the oounty*- qw-rem or bqut to be u6iea lloulB be
thatpr~~bed~paragraph (i)~fArt~ale6tw-4o.
four (r$)'per oenttm by relspt. VW
If add juatioets preciqot is an area uherfdn such -.'%'
f;ypeorelastilua~n o~rrl~holi~b~erp~ienorprohfbited,
&he ballots shGdid oorreapond fo paragraph (a):
gWorl&aliz%ng the'sale of beer, that
doeo not oonta&'alcohol in excess oft f'om?
(4%) per otitqau by uelghtr aqd ?agalnet legal-
.' LBfng,the salt! 0i bt%r that &oes not o0ntaS.n
. .~ alcohol in emems of four (4$) per oentrol by
weight. **
~3.nother uords, If be 8al? of beer t6 now legal as to
y Justi~*~~~?aipot, the eUn3tlon should be Co rohiblt or
W Drombf . It would-be .lnrproperto salsalt#Z?Ei%
OS rh&h~ or not somethIng rouldbelegalimd dhiehth&y al-
S~~'J&XWS V- R-n, sup+% xk6 8. f. I :114
Be quoter.
cm. or,in otberwords,inareaslige Youngcounty,vhere they
had ~~vior~ls votedfor the sale d.beer, thattetitay
was 'Yetkvitbrespectto that type ofliquor.~Moyerv.
Xelley,TezCiv.App., 93 S.W.(2d).
$2; grit dismissed;
Flowersv. Shearer, l&P; Whitmlre~
v. St.ate,lM
. . . Tex.Cr.R-372,9
Eonr Bert POM, xaroh 7, +, Page+s
Ina5utrh as the eleotioo you mention Is to be a pm-
olnct lsm8, that is, fa determine the local option status
of the eatlre predno~ re are of the opinion the ame type
ot ballot should be used for eaoh voter In the preo~ot, ir-
reqmotive of whether he reeiaea In the city. Ue Construe
the word @aream, as used In the statute, to mean the entire
preo,inot as a whole, and re do not believe the Legislature
oonteroplated the use OP different ballots where the result
of the elegtloa could only ohaage the status of one subbfri-
slon. The ef+Seot of such'eleotion oanwt ohange the statne
of the alty as to pr0hibitioa wlthln its bounds, lmtll there
12 a differeat dlstlaot dzlreot mte on the quesfion of whether
the Oity itself shall "legal&se* the sale.
Xou a&therefore advised It is our opinion there
should be no distinotion betreen‘the balote'to be used by
fhoee totem rho reside w%thln the oity and those residing
. ritbin the preoinot bat outside the city Umits.
*
Poura very truly
ATTORUEX GRWERAL OF TEUB