i OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

j AUSTIN 

I SR~~ER SELLERS 

gonornble Donald Allmm 

~ountg Auditor 

z&in Coilnty 

1(xlIltze, Texas 

bar Sir: 

on of road and 

four coiTtll.sliesting an ~oplnion 

it8 YOU fOi? a. Z’U3iSi$3 

nt3y under oonsidsrf th5sG mottorn has to a.0 with 

colsnty into cogaissio~ors~ pred by Art. 5, sec. 1~3 00 tha 

ho stota 0: ‘T8cmS. !fhLs 1;wy be 

A130 is o hoori~~ of any !cind ncoeona~f 

to establish faots to shov vhat would bo for ths 

c0nven1ence or the people, and, i? r,ot, what basis 

t in fact rust bo shovn to jwtffy n raorgsnlcation.,, 

. 

t 
-.,z 

426 

../.. 

lza, Ronald All~&s,~ Pags ~~2 

"The second matter has. to do with the dLvision of 

the road and bridge fund of the aounty betweeri the 

pour cGm3n.ss%Gners. Thus is covorea by Brt. 6740 of’ 

the Revised CivSP Statutes df 15'25 Wioh provides 

thst suoh funds shall be equitably expanded snd t8a 

nearly as tha condition and nooesslty of, tho roads 

vill perzzLt, Ft shall be expended In oath oounty~ 

cors;nisslouors~preair?ct in propozt2on to the omount 

oollcotzd in such proclnot..~ Various oases have 

held that an equal ditision betl7oen the four ooma~S8iOnCXW is IlOt pZ'Glp8T, lSOkin3 PPGO," Of Qth3X 

inequalities, where the valuotlona Qro disprOpOr- ~. 

tiomt;o. In this connection the Court would like 

to laiov what prooeedurze to follo?r in determining ._ 

a dfst~ibutlon of fUnds, and the factors which would 

enter into the es&ab&3hment of a dLvl.sLon of funds '. 

other than on Q b~sls of valUa.tion of, the precinots+ 

Is a hearing neces8sry, Andy if so, what facts are 

ptitennnt In con8idorlng how the funds should be' 

divZded." 

Section 18 of AZ%LCIC v of ow State-Constitution 

15 88 follocrst 

"Raoh organized Go&y in tho Stnte now-or 

hereafter exlstin& shall-be divided Prom tine to 

time, fos tine convonienco of the paople, into pmcincts, no2 less tlisn'four and not more tha.n olght.. 

The present Cow&y Courts shall make the first dlvision. Subaoquent d.ivlsLons shall be made by the 

~o3mkmiOn8rs~ court, provided for, by this CoustIt&on. In each ouch pl~eolnGt&ero shnll bo elected 

at OaCh bfOILUia1 OkStiOn, on0 jUStiCe Of th8 pOaoe. 

end one ConstablO, each Of uhom shall hold his Gffloe for tvo yonrs and until h%s successor shall bog' 

OloctGd and qualificd;'~ ppovidod that In any precinct 

In which thope may be a city of 8000 or more inh3bltants, tboro shall bo elected two justices of the . . 

peeoe. YGxh oouzty shall In like wmutir bo divided 

Into four Cozm&sionePs~ prsoif~:ts in each of whioh 

thera 3h.311 be elected by~the qualified voters thoreof, OM aounty comissfo~er, who shall hold his offtoo 

for twv;i years and uutil his 8ucocssoi~ shall bo bl&ed 

end qualified. The aounty oommlssionors so chonon, 

vlth the county judgs, as presiding offfoer; shall 
‘.’ 

, ‘, 

,427 

. 

: 

oompose the County Commlasioncrs Oourt, whloh : 

shall exercise ouch powers and jurledictioc over 

all county busfne38, a8 is ~onforxod by this Con-~ 

stltution and tho lima oi' the State, or as may be 

hereafter prescribed," . 

In El-ii case of Tuxner v. Allen, 254 S. W. 630, ‘tb.0 

:,ilrt of Civll Appeals in constrtin~ Sec. 18 of Art., V of the 

;:&itution stntcs the fol2owlng on pace 6$x 

"33~ section 18,;art. 5, of the Conetltution 

of this state, the coinz1133ion3x3’ ,court 1s vost;ed 

vlth authority to change and re-estahlioh *from time 

to time' county co~mlasioners~ preoincts 'for the 

conv0nb3noa of iih0 paople.' It io o2ear from tl-ds 

provision Or’ the Constitution that tho,countg cornmissionor3~ couzzt in Tosas is given the paver and 

authority to change and ro-ostabliuh oounty oommisoioners*.precindts at any time they may deem it to 

be for the .ccnvanLenoe of the paople to do so, and, 

whensuch authorLCp and power so conferred is ever- : 

ainod by thatcourt, Ux a&ion is not void.. The 

action ffiay be reviewed or corrected, when erroneously or vrongPu2ly or improuerly exerctsed, by a ' 

proper proceeding for that pu%~oae, but ‘SLIO~I eotlon, 

though it anoun% to n gross abuse of the court's 

diseretSt8on, and tiiough it, in eTfect, constitutes 

a lcSa1 fraud upon persons who msg be affeotcd by 

tha court's action, is not void, and connot boattacked or lnrpoaehed Cc&laterally. . . .* 

It is 

2% a8 falloars: 

ateted in ~%ewLs v. Harris, 48 8. W. (2d) 730, 

"As applied to dlrfcrent nltuations, the 

phrase toonvenience OS the pcoplo,' as u3ed in the 

CGlWtitUtiOn, may have different msenin@, but in OAX 

opinion it cannot properly bs construed as inpcging 

upon a commissioners* court the absolute duty of XIorrsng:iq tilt b~oundaries of ~0mls3i0ncI~3~ precincts, 

from tin3 to time, DO as to wcoril to ooch precinct 

repre%intation upon and power of conltrol of the commLsulo~.ors~ couri; in proPortion to their rospectlve 

Populations, voting strengths,:and taxtible valuations. 

. . . . 
. 

~. 1' ~. @3 ;

i 

i .' 

1 gc~.,nkmaid +I*s,' Page 4 

i' . 

1 "See the cases of Duboso v. Wood, ,162 S'.'Y. & a@ .'~ 

i yard'v. Bond, '10'2. W. (2d) 509, for sZ.milar holdings. 

: 

1 In vim~~of the fori?.;zolng It is the opfnion of this, l 

department that by vi3%ue of Sot. 1% of Art. V of the State 

t 

Constitution the Com*11xdoatms ( Court is vested with authority. 

! to change and re-ostabllsh frolp tim to time count% cgrnis3ion- 

,. em@ preoincts for tho "oonvonie'~ce of th3 people. th3 kXlGW Gf no 

4' provision in tine ststutco or ths Constitution of thls Stat0 rai 

I 

q&ring a hf?aring to establish faots to show that wouLd be for ,, 

I 

the convonkmoe of the psople. The qusatisn is left to the sound 

discretion of the Comissimers~ Couxt, and they my dctamine 

the question in any mnner they am fit so long as tholr action 

does not oonotitute a gross abuse of their disorotion. Weara 

hemvlth enolosfxg a oopy of our Opinion Ho. O-5%7 for goup 

consideration. ve trust this mlmi0rs youcr? first qu0stlon. 

I Your sooond question is answered b$:'Opinioti l'ior O-1091, 

5 e copy of vhbichis hereuith emlosed, wherein it holds: 

. II . ..*.. the distribution of the monies in the ' 

county road and brid e fund'ia governed by artiolo 

66753-10, Artioie.67 % 0 ond ths rule laid down in 

the aas8 OS stovall v; Shivors,,~aupra. -. 

"As for that porMon.of the county roa~d Andy 

bridge fundconsisting of automobile registration 

Peas paid, into the fund of srtialo 6679, section 

10, is controlling. It Is oux op5.nion that in expondiq this portion of the fund for the purpos~3 . 

expressly set out tn section 10 of article 66759, 

the comissionms~ couvt of the oountg shsll regard 

the rmds,and highways of the aouutyas a system to 

be'built, improved and maintained as a who10 to the 

beat intcrosts ana welfare of all the paoplo of the 

county arxl of alT the precincts of the county. 

"In roapeot to tho county raised nonles, .thay 

must be ~judiciously am:doquitably~ oxpondod. While 

the sixtuto (Art. 6740., supra) contbmgJ.utos that 

the r~otics nhnll bo oXpondcd. in each oo;misnion~srs 

procince In proportion to the amount ool1octe.d in 

such prcolnct, the oozmlmlonora~ court is not ooupalled. to foXLow any U3thotuatioal fornula in dividlrq tho fund, . 

I