October 11, 1972
Rep. Charles H. Jungmichel Opinion No. M-1235
Chairman, House Committee on
Public Education Re: Constitutionality of statute
Texas House of Representatives authorizing voters of an in-
State Capitol B;;;f;ng dependent school district
Austin, Texas within a junior college
district to vote themselves
out of the junior college
district, and related
questions involving S.B. 19
and H.B. 33, b2nd Leg., 1972,
Dear Mr. Jungmichel: 4th C.S.
Your request for an opinion reads as follows:
"Senate Bill 19 and House Bill 33 are before
the Legislature at this time and they are being
considered by the House Committee on Public Edu-
cation of which I am Chairman. A question con-
cerning the legality of this proposed legislation
has arisen which I feel needs some clarification.
"In their applicatio~n, these bills will
apply only to the Odessa Junior College District.
A Dart of that district comprising the Midland
Independent School District wants a legal basis
to disannex itself from the Odessa Junior College
District and establish a new Junior College Dis-
trict. This propo~sed disannexation and creation
of the separate Junior College District will be
voted on by the qualified voters of the indepen-
dent school districts. Those voting on the dis-
annexation question are a numerical minority in
the Junior College District. The vote, if
taken under this bill, would make it possible
for the numerical minority to decide the question
for all the voters in the Odessa Junior College
District.
"The questions to be answered are:
-6046-
I .
Hon. Charles H. Jungmichel, page 2 (M-1235)
1.
II
Is it constitutional for the voters of
an independent school district within a junior
college district to vote themselves out of the
junior college district?
“2. Does the bill cover only the Odessa
Junior College Taxing District?
“3. If parts of the bill apply to other
than the Odessa Junior College Taxing District,
specifically what applies to other districts?
114. What effect would this bill have on
subsequent junior college annexation and dis-
annexation procedures?
115. Is this a precedent in junior college
annexation and disannexation procedures in so
far as geographic integrity, i.e. could any
governmental entity vote itself out of a dis-
trict at an election called by a petition signed
by 5% of the voters without a vote of the whole
district?”
S.B. 19 and H.B. 33, b2nd Leg. 4th C.S., are companion
bills amending Subchapter d, Chapter 51, Texas Education Code;
by adding 51.069 reading as follows:
“Section 51.069. DISANNEXATIONOF
TERRITORY COMPRISINGAN INDEPENDENTSCHOOL
DISTRICT.
“(a) The territory of an independent
school district which is the-only school
district that has been annexed to a county-
wide independent school district junior
college district in an adjoining county may
be disannexed from such countywide independent
school district junior college district and
constituted as a separate independent school
district junior college district in accordance
with the provisions of this section, provided
that the countywide independent school district
junior college district has no outstanding
bonded indebtedness which was incurred after
the annexation of such independent school dis-
trict.
-6047-
Hon. Charles H. Jungmichel, page 3 (M-1235)
“(b) The proposed disannexation and crea-
tion of a separate junior college district
shall be initiated by a petition signed by
not less than five percent of the qualified
taxpaying electors of the independent school
district seeking disannexation. The petition
shall be presented to the board of trustees of
the independent school district seeking to be
disannexed, which shall pass upon the legality
and genuineness of the petition and forward
the petition, if approved, to the coordinating
board.
“(c) If the petition is found to be in
order and all statutory provisions have been
complied with, the coordinating board shall
approve the petition and notify the board of
trustees of the independent school district
seeking to be disannexed, of such approval.
The board of trustees of the independent
school district seeking disannexation shall
then order an election to be held in the
school district within a time not less than
20 days nor more than 30 days after the order
is issued. At the election the ballots shall
be nrinted to Drovide for votine for or against
the’ proposition: ‘Disannexation
atiog of the -
Independent ent School District
Tram the Junior
unior College District,
and creation f the Junior
Colleee District wit Vcoterminous
ariescoterminous
with the boundaries of the
Independent School District.’ (the blanks to
be filled in as appropriate). All expenses
incurred in holding the election shall be paid
by the independent school district ordering
such election.
“(d) The board of trustees shall make a
canvass of the returns and declare the result
of the election within 10 days after holding
the election and shall enter an order on the
minutes of the board as to the result of the
election. If a majority of the votes cast
are in favor of disannexation and creation
of a separate junior college district, such
independent school district shall be deemed
-604%
.
Hon. Charles H. Jungmichel, page 4 (M-1235)
disannexed and constituted as a separate
junior college district.
“(e) If the creation of the separate
junior college district is approved, it shall
be governed by the provisions of this code
relating to independent school district junior
colleges. The offices of the representatives
of the disannexed independent school district
of the governing body of the countywide in-
dependent school district junior college dis-
trict shall be terminated, and the remaining
members of that governing body shall continue
to serve for the terms for which they were
elected.
“(f) Any petition for disannexation and
creation of a separate junior college district
may also incorporate a request for the proper
authorities, in the event an election is ordered
for the creation of a new district, to submit
at the same election, either as a part of the
disannexation issue or as a separate issue,
the questions of issuing bonds and levying
bond taxes and levying maintenance taxes, in
the event the district is created, not to ex-
ceed the limits provided in Section 51.102 of
this code .‘I
Section 1 of Article VII of the Constitution of Texas
provides :
“A general diffusion of knowledge being
essential to the preservation of the liberties
and rights of the people, it shall be the duty
of the Legislature of the State to establish
and make suitable provision for the support
and maintenance of an efficient system of
public free schools.”
In construing the above quoted provision, it was held
in Mumme v. Marrs, 120 Tex. 383, 40 S.W.2d 31 (1931) , that the
liberal rules of construction of this constitutional provision
should apply in determining the power of the Legislature in
organizing a public school system. It was further held that
legislative determination of methods, restrictions and regula-
tions in organizing a State educational system is final except
-6049-
. . .
Hon. Charles H. Jungmichel, page 5 (M-1235)
when so arbitrary as to be violative of a constitutional right.
Junior college districts constitute a part of the svstec
of public free schools: Shepherd v. San Jacinto-Junior College
District, 363 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Sup. 1963). Therefore unless
regulated by some other constitutional provision, it is within
the sole discretion of the Legislature to determine the method
of annexation or deannexation of the territory comprising junior
college districts. Section 3-b of Article VII of the Consti-
tution of Texas provides in part:
“NO tax for the maintenance of public free
schools voted in any independent school district
and no tax for the maintenance of a junior college
voted by a junior college district? nor any bonds
voted in any such district, but unissued, shall
be abrogated, cancelled or invalidated by
change of any kind in the boundaries thereof.
After any change in boundaries, the governing
body of any such district, without the necessity
of an additional election, shall have the power
to assess, levy and collect ad valorem taxes on
all taxable property within the boundaries of
the district as changed, for the purposes of
the maintenance of public free schools or the
maintenance of a junior college, as the case
may be, and the payment of principal of and
interest on all bonded indebtedness outstanding
against, or attributable, adjusted, or allo-
cated to, such district or any territory
therein, in the amount, at the rate, or not
to exceed the rate, and in the manner authorized
in the district prior to the change in its
boundaries, and further in accordance with the
laws under which all such bonds, respectively,
were voted; . . .‘I
Section 3-b of Article VII recognizes that the Legis-
lature may authorize changes in the boundaries of junior college
districts so long as outstanding bonds are not abrogated, can-
celled or invalidated. Since the bills in question only apply
“provided that the county-wide independent school district
junior college district has no outstanding bonded indebtedness
which was incurred after the annexation of such independent
school district”, the bonded indebtedness of the junior college
district could not be and is not abrogated, cancelled or in-
validated by the provisions of the bills in question.
-6050-
.
Hon. Charles H. Jungmichel. page 6 (M-1235)
It may be argued that the electors comprising the
entire junior college district should be permitted to vote on the
deannexation of the independent school district since all the
taxable property within the boundaries of the junior college
district is subject to taxation for the present junior college
district. Nevertheless, this is a question that is solely within
the discretion of the Legislature and is not required by any
constitutional provision. You are accordingly advised, in answer
to your first and fifth questions, that it is constitutional for
the Legislature to authorize the voters of an independent school
district within a junior college district to vote to deannex the
territory comprising the independent school district and creating
a new junior college district.
Finally, in connection with our consideration of your
first question concerning constitutionality, we have concluded
that the form of the ballot and the proposition to be submitted
to the voters, although duplicitous, is not confusing and is
legally sufficient to inform the voter of the purpose of the
election and the effect of an affirmative vote and is thus con-
stitutional. The form of ballot will be uuheld if not mislead-
ing to the voters. Beeman v. Mays, 163 S.k. 358 (Tex.Civ.App.
1914, error ref.).
fin answer to your second and third questions, the
bills in question apply to any independent school district which
is the only school district that has been annexed to a county-
wide independent school district junior college district in an
ad ‘oining county. At the present time we are unaware of any
SCII001 districts other than the Midland Independent School Dis-
trict annexed to the Odessa Junior College District to which
these bills apply.
In answer to your fourth question, you are advised
that the provisions of these bills will apply to deannexation
procedure of territories of an independent school district
which is the only school district that has been annexed to a
countywide independent school district junior college district
in an adjoining county, whether such territory has been annexed
prior to or subsequent to the enactment of these bills.
SUMMARY
S.B. 19 and H.B. 33 of the b2nd Leg. 4th
C.S., relating to deannexing territories of
certain independent school districts from
-6051-
Hon. Charles H. Jungmichel, page 7 (M-1235)
certain junior college districts are consti-
tutional.
Prepared by John Reeves
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns Taylor, Chairman
W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
Gordon Cass
Gerald Ivey
James McCoy
Roger Tyler
SAMUELD. MCDANIEL
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRED WALKER
Executive Assistant
NOLA WHITE
First Assistant
-6052-