. 

March 7, 1939 

Honorable A. M. Pribble 

County Attorney 

Mill8 county 

Goldthwa,ite, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion No. G-339 

Re: Residential and property qualifications 

of elector in school consolidation election held under Art. 2806, R.C.S. 1925. 

Under date February 10, 1939, you submitted three questions 

for dur coasLderation and opinion, involving certain school laws of Texas. 

Your third question is not related in subject matter to the first two, and 

for that reason will be answered in a separate opinion. Your first two questions, which may be logically grouped in this opinion, are as follows: 

‘1. Is it necessary for a voter to be a property owner if 

he is otherwise qualified to vote in a school consolidation election 7 

“2. What is the time required to satisfy residence requirement to qualify a voter to vote in a school consolidation 

election 7 ” 

Article 288.6, Revised CfviI Statutes, g,overns the conditions, 

mode and manner of holding elections for the consolidation of several contiguous common school districts or independent school districts, such as 

involved in the two foregoing questions. But this governing statute is silent 

as to the property-holding and residential quaBficat.ions of electors in such 

school consolidation e&?&ions. and we must. consequently, turn to the auffrage requirements and provisions written into the Organic Law and the gen- 

.eral statutes thereunder. 

.We shall, of course, assume that the persons offerfng to vote 

in these school consolidation elections do not fall within the five classes to 

which suffrange is denied under Artic,le 6, Section 1. Constitution of Texas. 

and that such persons are in al3 things qualified electors under the Constitution and statutes generally, except insofar as their right to vote might be affected by the property-owning and residential qualifications involved in your 

.questions. 
. . . 1 

Honorable A. M. Pribble, page 2 (O-339) 

qualifications of a voter in school consolidation elections, we find that this 

question is ma& to turn, by tha controlling constitutional provision and 

statutes declaratory thereof, upon the question of whether such school consolidation election is ‘for the purpose of issuing bonds or otharwise lending 

r credit,$r credit, or expending money or assuming any debt,” upon the part 

of such school district or political subdivision, within the meaning and inkndment of Section 3a, Article 6, Constitution of Texas, which read6 as fol1Qws : 

“When an eiection is held by any county, or any number of 

counties, or any political sub-division of the State, or any political sub-division of a county, or any deffned district now or hereafter to be described and defined within the State and whfch may 

or’may not include towns, villages or municipal corporations, or 

any city, town or village, for’ the purpose of issuing bonds or otherwise lending credit, or expending money or assuming any debt, 

only qualified electors who own taxable property in the State, .county. 

political sub-division, district, city, town or village where such election is held, and who have .duly rendered the same for taxati& shall 

be qualified to vote and all electors shall vote in the election pre- 

,cinct of their residence.” 

Prior to the adoption of the foregoing amendment to the Constitution of Texas on November 8, 1932, there were no express property-holding 

requirements for voters in elections involving the issuance of bonds. the 

levy of taxes, etc. in school districts and other defined districts and political 

subdivisions, but only property requirements for such elections in incorporated cities and iMms, under Section 3. Article 6. Constitution of Texas. 

Article 2955a, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, is merely de- 

.claratory of Section 3x, Article 6, Constitution of Texas, and in fact fbllows the above-qftotpd language of such constitutional prwision word for word.~ 

Section 3a. Article 6, Constitution of Texas, was construed by 

the Court of Civil Appeals at El Paso in the Casey of O’Brien, et al, v. 

Snelson, et al, 82 S.W.(2) 679, inaofar as same governs the qualifications of 

electors in school consolidation elections under Article 2806, Revised Civil 

Statutes.; The court held that the right to vote in such elections was not limited 

‘to electors awning taxable property, which had been duly rendered for taxation, since such election did not involve Ylending credit or expending money 

or assuming any debt” within this constitutional provision limiting right to 

vote to such electors, inasmuch as the election did not involve assumption 

by consolidated district of outstanding bonds of the old district. and another 

election would be required to determine whether taxes should be levied for 

consolidated district. 
Honorable A. hf. Pribble, page 8 (O-889) 

, The constitutional and statutory provisions above adverted 

to and the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals thereunder, conclusively point to a negative answer to your first question But to avoid confusion 

and to properly limit this opinion, we strass that such negative answer proceeds upon the assumption that the school consolidation election under inquiry, Iihe that involved in the case discussed above, is for the purpose onl~of voting a consolidation of school districts and does not embrace a vz 

on the assumption of outstanding bonds or the levy of taxes. Because, in this 

connection, we ,find that Article 2807. Revised Civil Statutes, allows the question of the assumption of outstanding bonds Of an old school district and Levy 

of taxes therefor. to be submitted to the voters, along with the question of 

the proposed consolidation of such school districts, all in the same election. 

While your letter does not so indicate, should the fact be that the election 

in question is for the twofold purpose of voting on the question Of. consolidation and upon the question of assumption of. bonds and levy of taxes, as permitted by Article 2807. Revised Civil Statutes, fhen we would be constrained 

to answer your question in the affirmative. 

.Turning now to your second inquiry. we find that same is likewise foreclosed by the ~wstitution and statutes, and the authorities there- 

. .Jander. Section 2, Article .6. Conatitutioh of Texas, fixes the residential qualifications and requirements of electors generally, as follows: 

“Every person subject to none of the foregoing disquslifications, who shall have attained the age of twenty-one years 

and who shall be a citizen of the United States and who shall 

have resided in this State one year next preceding an election 

and the last six months within the district or county in which 

such person offers to vote, shall be deemed a qualified elector;... - 

Although this constitutional provision is self-enacting, the Legislature, by Article 2955, Revised Civil Statutes, fined residential requirements for qualified electors in identical language, but added this further provision: 

I 

. . . In any election held only in a subdivision of a 

county for the purpose of determining any local question or 

proposition affection only such subdivision of the county, 

then in addition to the foregoing qtilifications, the voter 

must have resided in said county for six months next preceding such election . . . * 

Although there are certain constitutional and statutory provisions requiring an elector to vote in the election precinct of his residence, 
Honorable A. M. Pribble. page 4 (O-339) . ..-I 

there is no required length of time for such residence as a qualification 

for voting. The only requirements for length of residence as qualifications 

for suffrage have been hereinabove quoted. and we see they apply only to 

the State, district and county and not to precincts, political subdivisions or 

defined districts. 

This construction is sustained in the case of Warren, et al v. 

.Robinson. 32 S. W. 2d 871. involving a road district bond election, wherein 

the court overruled the contention that since the election was held only in a 

subdivision of a county, six months residence in such subdivision was required by law. 

Our answer to your second question, therefore, is that an eLector 

otherwise qualified, may vote in a school consolidation election, under Article 

2806. Revised Civil Statutes, if he shall have resided in this State .one year 

and in the county wherein such school districts lie, for six months next preceding such election. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS 

BY /s/ Pat M. Neff. Jr. 

Pat M. Neff, Jr. 

Assistant 

PMN:N:da 

APPROVED 

/s/ Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS