Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN HOnorable B0z44rLeOnard, 5p4aker IfaUkSof Rapres4ntstlYet!l Austin, Texas ma Bill lo. 453 tea thm ana4 aa wmmtutlona~~ty of thtr dor onlj th4 aoption there- I An Aet rlxl.q the In all oauntier lng l p c @ uZItia n o f ummd two h u ndr ed fo r ty enty -nlJk 4th o u a a mlth r 4 4 reeocaing to th4 loot Lar r4peallng all law4 'Phisdopsrtasnt haa written mmqy opinionr holdiq that alaillar81114, *ioh 444k to f&x the 44larles of Oopnty offleers In a p4rtleuloriLoounty,am in violsitionof 54Otion 56 Of Artiols 3 OF the State Conrtltution whItahprovide4 ia, parts Honorable Ho184rLeoasrd, Page 2 %4 L4pSmlatur4 mhall not, 4xaopt am othervl8e gmavlded in thlm 00Amt1totiatl, pa88 any local or mp4oial lav euthoriclngr "Regulating the affrlrm of oountl4m, + l 4 -n Among our opinloo4 holding unconmtltutlonal minilmr Blllm aontalning populmtlon braokotm oi thlm typo, 6r4 Horn. O-2973, O-3040 and O-3417, aopI4m of whhh we 4n41080 hbmlth. In addition t0 the authoritlom 8it4d in th480 Opini0~8, we refer to the rooent 4amo of HO.lor, 4t ml v. County of El Pamo, et al, dealded on April P3, 1941, not yet report&, whomin Chlof Jus- tiso Al4xand4r doolandt %e are th42MXw4 met at the outmet vlth a lav whloh, under faotm v411 kn4vn at th4 tiru of its adoption, vmm applicable only to a mingle aountfr Clearly th4n it 18 8 104al law and mumt fall am mu&, unlemm it mmn be fairly aad that the olasr 40 rnogmymtd by thm Aa t is l mubmtentiel 4.lamm and ham &ar- aotorl8tla8legltlaatmly dfmtingul8htng it frar the ~e884bd0~ or th4 ma0 80 68 t0 r4qtLre lbgimlatlon peoullar th4r4to. Iathlm %n6tana4 th4 ala88ifl4atlolr18 mmd4 to nmt entirely on th4 populmtlon of th4 oounty and a city thsreis. Rooort to papulatlan bratScot8for the pullporeof olammlfylng mub- jeotm for logimlmtion 18 pe~mmlble whom the l proad OS papulatlon im broad enough to lnalude OF megr6gato a 8ubmtmntlal alamm, end vhoro the population boars 8o1* r4al r4latlon to the lnbjoot of'l4glmlrtlon and afford6 e fair bmmlm Pas the ol888lfiaatlon. It ham been 14gitirstoly 4m@oy4d in fixing Tcremof offloom in oertaln 0am48 (Clark v. Finl4y, comptro114s, 93 Tea. 178), but even then it ia pormlmrlblr only vhere th4 mpremd of populatLon im lub8tm.nt~aland 18 8ufflaIont to lnoluds a real olamm vlth ahrraotorlmti68 which reamonably dimtingulmh it fWm Other8 mm appllod to the crant@qplatod &&Ii8latlon, and afford8 8 fair barn18 foor th4 olammifioa- tion. Bexar Caunty v. rmSa, 97 a. If. (24) 46?.* IIanar4bl4Hom4*L40n4~, P-4 3 It ia oup apiaion, therefore. that 8umte Bin SO. 453 viol&mm Umotion 56 of As-tiole3 of the f%nmtituthn of Tmxmm. Yours vary truly ATTORHRY - OF !cxAs