The Attorney General of Texas
August 28, 1978
JOHN L. HILL
Attorney General
Honorable Homer A. Davis Opinion No. II- 1233
County Attorney
Hartley County Re: Whether election on annex-
P. 0. Box 1110 ation to hospital district may be
Dalhart, Texas 79022 held within three months of elec-
tion defeating similar proposal.
Dear Mr. Davis:
You ask whether, on the facts presented, an election may be held on the
annexation of part of Hartley County to the Moore County H,ospital District.
Early in 1978, a petition was presented to the directors of the Moore County
Hospital District seeking annexation into the district of part of Hartley
County. The proposal was defeated by voters within the area proposed to be
annexed. Thereafter, a second petition was filed seeking annexation of part
of Hartley County into the Moore County Hospital District. This second
petition covered a different tract of land than the first petition although
there was some overlap. An election on the second proposal has been set for
a date in August, 1978. You wish to know whether the second election may be
called within three months of the first election. You inform us that the
Hartley County Commissioners have voted to become part of a proposed
Dallam-Hartley Counties Hospital District, which will require legislative
action to establish.
The Moore County Hospital District was established pursuant to an
uncodified special law adopted under the authority of article 9, section 9 of
the Texas Constitution. V.T.C.S. art. 4494q; Acts 1969, 61st Leg., ch. 287.
Section 1A of the special law creating the hospital district provides in part:
Under the provisions of this Section, territory which
is not then within (i) Moore County, or (ii) within the
boundaries of any other hospital district, or (iii) within
the proposed boundaries of any hospital district which
the Legislature has authorized to be included within
the area of a hospital district under article IX, Section
9 of the Constitution, may be annexed or added to the
area included in the boundaries of the proposed district
P. 4923
Honorable Homer A. Davis - Page 2 (H- 12 3 3 )
set forth in Section 1. Territory which is proposed to be
annexed or added may be in one or more tracts, each of
which shall be either contiguous (adjacent) to the area of the
district as described in Section 1, or contiguous (adjacent) to
territory which has been or is proposed to be annexed to the
district.
If the territory in Hartley County fits the foregoing description, voters who reside
there may petition for its annexation according to the following provision of
section 1A:
A petition asking that territory be annexed to the district
may be presented to the board of directors of the dis-
trict. . . . The board of directors, upon the receipt of the
petition, if it finds that it would be in the best interest of
the district, shall (within 90 days after such finding) approve
the same and order an election to determine if such property
shall be annexed or added to the district.
. . . .
The provisions of Section 3, with respect to the qualifica-
tions of voters in the election therein provided, as well as
the provisions thereof with respect to the time, manner and
holding of elections and giving notice thereof, shall apply to
all elections held under the provisions of this Section.
. . . The board of directors of the district may consider all
petitions presented to it, and approve or reject the
same. . . .
(Emphasis added). Section 3(a) of the special law, referred to and emphasized
above, reads in part:
The district shall not be created, nor shall any tax therein,
be authorized unless and until such creation and tax are
approved by a majority of the qualified property taxpaying
electors of the area of the proposed district voting at an
election called for such purpose. . . . Such election shall be
held not less than 35 nor more than 60 days from the date
the election is ordered. The order calling the election shall
specify the date, place or places of holding the election. . . .
The failure of such election shall not operate to prohibit the
calling and holding of subsequent electtons for the same
p. 4924
-, Honorable Homer A. Davis - Page 3 (H-1233)
purpose; provided, however, that no district election for
confirmation can be held within 12 months of any proced?&
district election for confirmation, and, further provided, if
this district is not confirmed within 5 years of the effective
date of this Act, this Act is hereby repealed.
(Emphasis added). We believe Texas courts, if called on to judicially interpret the
meaning of “same purpose” as used above, would probaby hold under the facts
presented that the second proposed annexation election is not for the “same
purpose” as the initial election which failed because the second proposal
encompasses substantially different territory, even though some land was included
in both proposed annexations. Cf. Attorney General Opinion No. H-145 (1973)
(political subdivision could hold one election per year at county expense). That
being our opinion of the probable construction to be placed on the language under
the facts presented here, we need not decide whether the prohibition of two
elections within 12 months applies to annexations by reason of the emphasized
language of section 1A. In all other respects the annexation election must comply
with section 3.
In the absence of an express limitation on the frequency of annexation
elections, we believe none exists. See Attorney General Opinion V-585 (1948), V-126
(1947). The matter is within the discretion of the board of directors, which shall
r order an election if it would, in its judgment, be in the best interest of the district.
.
SUMMARY
The special law under which the Moore County Hospital
District was established, Acts 1969, 61st Leg., ch. 287, does
not provide for a specific interval of time between annex-
ation elections unless the elections are for the same
purpose.
APPROVED:
DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant
p. 4925
. -
Honorable Homer A. Davis - Page 4 (H-1233)
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 4926
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion