- . 

” 

,. 

I. 

MAY 8, 1951 

Hon. A. M. Aikin, Jr., Chai- Opinion No. V-1173 

Senate Committee on Education 

52nd Legislature Re: Effect of Senate Bill 250, 

Austin, Texas apportioning the State into 

twenty-two congressional 

Districts, upon the composition of the twenty-one 

member State Board of EduDear Senator: cat ion. 

We refer to your request for an opinion of this office con-' 

cerning the effect of proposed Senate Bill 250 of the 52nd Legislature, apportioning the State into twenty-two Congressional Districts, 

upon the composition of the twenty-one member State Board 'of Education. 

The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 250, provides for 

twenty-two Congressional Districts, and the caption of that bill reads 

as follows: 

"An Act to apportion the State of Texas into Congressional Districts, naming the Counties composing the same, 

and providing for the election of a member of the Congress 

of the United States from each district, repeala all laws 

and parts of laws in conflict herewith, and declaring an . 

emergency. " 

Section 8 of Article VII, Constitution of Texas,~ provides 

inpart: 

'The Legislature shall provide by law for a State 

Board of Education, whose members shall be appointed or 

elected in such -er and by such authority and shall 

serve for such terms as the Legislature shall prescribe 

not to exceed six years. . . .l( 

There is no provision in the Texas Constitution which relates to the method by which members for a State Board of Education 

shall be appointed or elected, nor which fixes the number of members 

which shall constitute that board. Section 8 of Article VII, supra, 

leaves these matters entirely with the Legislature. 
. - 

-. 

Hon. A. M. Aikin, Jr., page 2 (V-1173) 

Pursuant to the above constitutional'mandate, the 51st Legislature enacted Senate Bill 115, creating an elective State Board of 

Education. S.B. 115, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 299, P. 537. 

Section 1 of Article II of Senate Bill 115, supra, originally provided: 

"There is hereby created the State Board of Education, 

to consist of twenty-one (21) members. .Ons member of the 

State Board of Education shall be elected from each of the 

twenty-one (21) Congressional Districts of the State of 

Texas-as th;y now exist and as they shall be changed from 

time to time." (Emphasis ad&d.) 

However, Article II of Senate Bill 115 was subsequently 

amended by the same legislature in House Bill 964, Acts 5lst Leg., 

R.S. 1949, ch. 546, p. 1056, codified in Vernon's civil Statutes under Article 2654-2. The caption of House Bill 964 reads In part as 

follows: 

"An Act . . . creating the State Board of Education 

and dividing the State into Educational Districts for the 

purpose of selecting members thereof; . . ." 

Article 2654-2, V.C.S. (H.B. 964, supra), provides in part: 

. 

"Section 1. There:.is hereby created the State Board 

of Education, to consist of twenty-one (21) members. One 

(1) member of the State Board of Education shall be elected from each of the twenty-one (21) Congressional Districts 

of the State of Texas." 

. 

"Sec. 2. A special election shall be held in each of 

the twenty-one (21) Congressional Districts of the State of 

Texas on the second Tuesday& November, 1949, for the purpose of electing the initial members of the State Board of 

Education, such members so elected at such election to hold 

office until January 1, 1951, . . ." 

"Sec. 5. At the general election in 1950 there shall 

be elected, in conformity with the general election laws of 

this State, from each of the Congressional Districts, one 

(1) member of the State Board of Education. The members of 

said Board elected at said election in 1950 in Districts 1, 

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 shall serve for a termof two (2) years 

beginning January 1, 1951; the members of said Board elected 

at said election in 1950 in Districts 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 

and 14 shall serve for a term of four (4) years beginning 

January 1, 1951; and the~members.of said Board elected at 
Han, A. M. Aikin, Jr., page 3 (V-1173) 

said election in 1950 in Districts 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 

20, and 21 shall serve for a term of six (6) years beginning January 1, 1951. At the general election in 

1952 and at each general election thereafter, members 

shallbe.elected, In conformity with the general election laws of this State, to the Board offices which will 

become vacant on December 31 of that year. The members 

thus elected shall hold office for a term of six (6) 

years, beginning January 1 immediately following such 

election." 

“Sec. 6. In case of resignation or death of a member of said Board, or in case a position . . . otherwise 

becomes vacant, the Board shall fill such vacancy . . . 

by appointment of a qualified person from the affected 

district, . . . end, at the next general election after 

any such vacancies occur, members on said Board from the 

affected districts shall be elected . . . to fill such 

vacated offices for such nnexpiredterms. ..,. ." 

"Sec. g. . . . No person shall be eligible to 

serve on said Board or be elected thereto unless he shall 

be... a qualified elector of his district, . . ." 

It is settled law that statutes will be construed so as to 

carry out the legislative intent. 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3rdEd. 1943) 333, Sec. 4701. When such intent is once ascertained, it will be given effect even though the literal meaning of 

the words used therein is not followed. Wood v. State, 133 Tex. 110, 

126 ~.~.2d 4 (1939); Longoria v. State, 126 Tex.Crim. 362, 71 S.W.2d 

268 (1934); Trimmier v. Carlton, 116 Tex. 572, 296 S.W. 1070 (1927); 

Hidalgo County Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Davidson, 102 Tex. 533, I.20 

S.W. 849 (1909). 

Furthermore, it is a well established rule of statutory 

construction that the Legislature is presumed to have intended that 

which is reasonable anq effectual rather than that which Is productive of absurd or anomalous consequences. Statutes should never be 

given a construction that leads to uncertainty, injustice, or confusion if it is possible to construe them otherwise. 39 Tex. Jur. 222, 

246, Statutes, Sets. 118, 131; 39 Tex. Jur. 176-184, Statutes, Sets. 

93, 95, 96. 

Highly significant in the ascertainment of legislative intent herein is the fact that the clause "as they now exist and as 

they shall be changed from time to time" is absent Ln House Bill 964, 

the amendment of Section 1 of Article II of Senate Bill 115. By its 

act of expunging these words from the original act by the amend3tory 

law, the Legislature thereby definitely fixed the number of members 
. 

.A 

Hon. A. M. Aikin, Jr., page 4 (V-1173) . 

to be elected end serve on such board at twentylone. This it had authority to do under Section 8 of Article VII, Constitution of Texas. 

Additional evidence of legislative intent is present In the 

above quoted portion of the caption'of the amen&tory House Bill 964, 

supra, wherein it expressly provides for "dividing the State into 

Educational Districts for the purpose of selecting members" on the 

elective State Board of Education created therein. In construing a 

statute, a court is not restricted to,its body. 39,Tex. Jur. 226, 

Statutes, Sec. 121. The caption, when considered with Section 1 of 

the body of the act, as it may be In the dstermlnation of ambiguities 

and in arriving at legislative intent, indicates that the intention 

of the Legislature was to adopt, for the purpose of "Educational Districts," the same areas previously established and recognized as Congressional Districts in Article 197, V.C.S. Westervelt v. Yates, 145 

Tex. 38, 194 S.W.2d 395 (1946). Thus, the Legislature accomplished 

the purpose expressed in the caption, "tb divide the State into Educational Districts," in Section 1 of Its bill by reference to and 

adoption of the then established confines of Congressional Districts. 

In Trimmier v. Carlton, 116 Tex. 572, 296 S.W. 1070, 1074 

(1927), the court stated: 

"Statutes which refer to other statutes and make them 

applicable to the subject of legislation are called 'reference statutes,' and are a familiar and valid mode of legis- 

( latlon. The general rule is that when a statute is adopted 

by a specific descriptive ,reference, the adoption takes the 

statute as It exists at that time, and the subsequent amsndment thereof would not be within the terms of the adopting ': 

act . 'I 

See also Cameron v.-.Waco, 8 S.~.2d 249 (Tex.Clv.App. 1928); 39 Tex. 

Jur. 129, Statutes, Sec. 66. 

By the expediency of reference, the Legislature thereby relieved itself of defining v&rbatim within House Bill 964 the boundaries 

or composition of the twenty-one "Educational Districts" created therein. Identification of such educational districts will always be available in the official publication of the State laws under Senate 

Bill 195, Acts 43rd Leg., R.S. 1933, ch. 135, p. 344, regardless of a 

repeal or amendment of that law for Congressional District purposes 

only. 

For yet another reason we think House Bill 964 must be construed in the manner expressed herein. It was reasonable to contemplate at the time House Bill 964 was enacted that the State might become entitled to more or less than twenty-one Congressmen and that 

the C_ongressionul Districts would be Increased or diminished to create 
Hon. A. M. Aikin, Jr., page 5 (V-1173) 

newly defined districts. To construe "EducationalDistricts" to be coterminous with Congressional Districts as changed from time to time 

would be to construe the law in violation of that provision in House 

Bill 964 which provides that the State Board of Education shall consist of twenty-one members. It is reasonable to assume that the Legislature had no intention of producing such a conflict. Or, if perchance a twenty-second Congressional District were lawfully created, 

the qualified voters in such twenty-second Congressional District 

might have no representation on the State Board of Education. This 

would be construing a law so as to disfranchise part of the voters 

when the clear intent of House Bill 964 was for the enfranchisement 

of all qualified voters of this State. Statutes should not be construed to disfranchise voters when they reasonably may be construed 

otherwise. Thomas V. Groebl, 147 Tex, 70, 212 S.W.2d 625 (19.948). If 

the act had so intended, it would have been unconstitutional. Smith 

v. Patterson, 111Tex. 535, 242 S.W. 749 (1922). We find no evidence 

of such an intention in House Bill 964. 

An examination of the caption and body of proposed Senate 

Bill 250 of the 52nd Legislature reveals that its sole expressed purpose is to reapportion the State of Texas into Congressional Districts, naming the counties composing them. Since it is our opinion 

that there has been created by House Bill 964 educational districts 

as distinguished from Congressional Districts, It would necessarily 

follow that proposed Senate Bill 250, if passe3, could have no effect 

to change the composition of the educational dls:ricts as established 

In House Bill 964, nor to change the composition :,f the twenty-one 

member State Board of Education. 

SUMMARY I 

Proposed Senate Bill 250 of the 52nd Legislature, apportioning the State into twenty-two Congressional Districts, 

would have no effect upon the composition of the twenty-one 

member State Board of Education. House Bill 964, Acts 5lst 

kg., R.S. 1949, ch. 546, p. 1056; Art. 2654-2, V.C.S. 

APPROVED: Yours very truly, 

J.C. Davis, Jr. PRICE DAilIEL 

County Affairs Division Attorney General 

E. Jacobson 

Reviewing Assistant --4sLz.7~~ d 

BY 

Charles D. Mathews Chester E. Ollison 

First Assistant Assistant 

CBO:mw:pwb