OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAg
AUSTIN
Honorable Ralph Brook
County Attorney
Lubbaak, Toxar
twa ~huadred and twontp
an~alnstem thaiman&
~934~1, end in
pulation of no loae than
three hundred and twenty-
Independent Sahoal Diltriota, and prO?idad that
euoh pstdtion mu8t be ftl~& with the Board Of
Trusteea at lmst sixty (60) day8 beforo the
date of m&ohsleotloa. The tern or orrloe of
an elOQtt36 Tax amsensor ana aoueotor ohall
be Sor two (2) years frc+m the &Ate Of eieotion.
It iril also provsdea that the Board of Truetees
shall appoint a Tax Ame#aor 6na Colleotar upoa
reoei)t of a petition signed by twenty-fita
Eon. i*lph Brook - Page 2
(25) per cent OS the qualified voter6 in
suoh Indaipeniient School LUatrlot, but pro-
vlded that it petition8 requestlug both
eleotlon and appointment are riled at the
~~BND t&m, the potitlon whioh I8 rigned
by the l.ar(gr8t number o? qualified ratrrrr
shrru prevail, and the Boara of Truateea
ahall follow the moae ol seleotion of a
Tox keresaor and COlleotOr reqUeeteh by 8uoh
petltlon.’
ATtiol* 3, Sea. 56, State Canrtlt~tion,
rorbiaa the pareaga of anp looal or epeoial law
%egulating the affairs al . . . 8ohool dietriotat
oraattng orrlcen in . eohaol d18trIotr.a
f&iii& oortab. braoket Le&ilatlon Invalid IR
Biller v. El Paso Countr, 150 s. w. (2) 1000, the
supream Caprt eaiac
WatwIth@taniilng the ebove aonrtitu-
tioarl grOViaIon, the 00wtn reoognlnr In
the ksgirlature a rather broad power to
make elaasifI@atiom ror legirlatire pur-
pates aa to raaot lawe for the regulation
thereof, even though awh legielatlon may
be applIaabJ.e only to a partioular olaaa 62,
in fact affeot only the inhabitentm of a
partIo&r looalitp( but auoh legislation
must be intended to apply uniromly to all
who lasy eoae wIthin,the alarroifiaation de-
signated in the Aot, and the claO8lriaation
must be br@aQ enough to Inoludo a rubetantial
alma end wet be baaed on cheracteriitfor
lagltliuatsly dietinguiahfng suoh ol.am from
othera with respeot to the pub110 purpo8e
aought to be ecaomp.Uehea by.the propodled
legielation. In other worcle, there must be
e eubstantial memn ?or the classiffaotion.
Tt muet not be a acre arbitrary derioe re-
aortea to for the purpose or giring what
Is, In fad, a looal law the appearanee of a
general law.*
,
l&err the Aot in question meet the txst laid
dowa iza the hliller V, is1 Faeo case’0 (See elm Berar
Eon. Ralph Brook - Page 3
County v. Tynani 97 s. 3. (2) 4-67, 128 Tsx. 223).
Note the respeotire populatione or the
follow- aounties, aocording to the 1940 oeneus;
The braokets In question quite neatly pIclcc~
out Titus and Lubbook Counties ironi all the rent.
Aot, If YalId, would apply to thoee two oountiee alone.
We are unable to iin6 zany reaeon whateoever for the
so-oallsd oleseIfIoetion. Ueing shier 3ustIoe Alex-
ander’s words in Miller v. El Paso Couatr, eupra,
*whatever difference thare la In population doea not
appear to be material to the objeots sought to be
aacomplishedd” br the propored legislation.
It 18 our opinfon that 6aia IIowa Bill 618
aontrarenneo Artiole 3, Sec. 56, of the State Coruti-
tution, ana Ie therefore void.
Yours very truly
ATTORNNXGlWBRhLOF TEXAS