:
TRE A~O~EY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
April 24, 1975
The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall Opinion No. H- 592
Hale’ Co\ulty Attorney
Hale County Courthoure Re: Whether upon presenta-
Plainview, Texas 79072 tion of a petition a county is
required to call an election
to invalidate bonds already
authorized.
Dear Mr. Marshall:
You have requested our opinion regarding whether upon presenta-
tion of a petition the Commissioners Court of a county is required to call
an election to invalidate previously authorized road bonds. You describe
the situation as follows:
On June 15, 1974, the Commissioners Court of
Hale, County, Texas requested an election to be
held in Hale County to determine whether or not
$l,OOO,OOO in bonds should be issued for the purpose
of right-of-way improvements of the existing High-
way No. 70 West from Plainview, Texas. The
election resulted in defeat of the bonds by 70 votes.
On July 1, 1974, the Commissioners Court
ordered a second election to be held on August 6,
1974. That election carried by 166 votes.
In an open meeting of the Commissioners Court
on September 9, 1974, a petition was presented to the
Commissioners Court containing approximately 500
signatures. That petition seeks a third election pre-
sumably under Article 742b [sic], Vernon’s Annotated
Texas Civil Statutee, to determine again the issue of
$l,OOO,OOO in bonds. No bonds have been issued pur-
want to the August 6. 1974 election.
p. 2639
The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall, page 2 (H-592)
Under the provisions of article 752b, V. T. C. S., the commissioners court
of a county is required to order an election:
[u]pon the petition of the resident property taxpaying
voters of any county equivalent in number to one
percent or more of the total votes cast in said county
in the last preceding general election for Governor
. . . to determine whether or not the bonds of such
county shall be issued for the purpose of the construc-
tion, maintenance and operation of macadamized,
graveled, or paved roads and turnpikes, or in aid
thereof, and whether or not taxes shall be levied on
all taxable property of said county, subject to taxation,
for the purpose aE.paying the interest on said bonds
and to provide a sinking fund for the redemption thereof
at maturity. . . . In lieu of the petition process described
in this section the commissioners court of a county may,
by majority vote, order the election.
Since article 752b is applicable to all elections “to determine whether or
not the bonds of such county shall be issued, ” ‘the statute could arguably be
construed to apply to bond revocation elections. We believe, however, that
a legislative intent not to include revocation elections within the scope of
article 752b may be’inferred from the existence of article 717g, V. T. C. S.,
which provides a separate means for revoking previously authorized bonds:
Section 1. The Commissioners Court of any county
and the governing body of any incorporated city or town,
including Home Rule Cities, are hereby empowered and
authorized to order an election or elections for the purpose
of determining whether the authortty to issue bonds there-
tofore voted but which have not at the time of ordering
such election been sold and delivered ehall be revoked
or canceled. The authority granted by this Act shall apply
to unsold and undelivered bonds whether the same constitute
all or only a portion of an issue. Such election shall be
ordered, held, and conducted in the same form and manner
and under the same procedure as that at which such bonds
were originally authorized. . . .
p. 2640
; . -
The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall, page 3 (H- 592)
Article 717g clearly confers discretion upon the commissioners court
as to whether to order a revocation election. Since article 752b is at best
ambiguous regarding the inclusion therein of bond revocation elections, it
is our opinion that article 717g provides the exclusive means by which previously
authorized bonds may be revoked. Accordingly, a commissioners court is not
required, upon presentation of a petition pursuant to article 752b, to call an
election to invalidate previously authorized road bonds.
SUMMARY
A commissioners court is not required, upon
presentation of a petition, to call an election for the
purpose of invalidating previously authorized road
bonds.
Very truly yours.
A?&&
JOHN L. HILL
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED: k
hcILLJ@
DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 2641