DAN MORALES 

.ATT”RNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of tfy !Zlttornep @eneral 

&ate of lEeme 

December 8,1992 

Honorable Thomas E. White 

Hamilton County Attorney 

P. 0. Box 83 1 

Hamilton, Texas 76531 

Opinion No. DM-186 

Re: Whether the boundaries of the 

Hamilton Hospital District, described in 

the district% authorizing legislation as 

coextensive with certain. commissioners 

precincts of Hamilton County, change in 

accordance with the county’s subsequent 

redistricting of those commissioners 

precincts (RQ-395) 

Dear Mr. White: 

You ask about the boundaries of the Hamilton County Hospital District (the 

“district”). The bill authorizing the district’s creation was adopted in 1987. Acts 

1987,7Oth Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 42, P 1.03, at 131. Ini989, the 1987 enabling legislation 

was amended to provide that the district boundaries are to be “coextensive with the 

boundaries of commissioners precincts 1,2, and 4 of Hamilton County.” Acts 1989, 

71st Leg., ch. 591, 5 1, at 1960. The 1989 bill further specifies that one district 

director “shall be elected from each commissioner precinct included in the district 

and two directors shall be elected from the district at large.” Id. at 1961. 

You advise that since the above-mentioned 1989 amendments, Hamilton 

County has redrawn its commissioners precinct lines. You ask whether the district’s 

boundaries change in accordance with Hamilton County’s redrawing of its 

commissioners precinct lines or whether they remain coextensive with the 

boundaries of the county’s commissioners precincts 1,2, and 4 as the latter existed 

at the time of the 1989 amendments, which referred to such commissioners precinct 

boundaries for purposes of describing the territory of the district. In our opinion, 

the district’s boundaries - both externally, and internally for purposes of director 

elections-remain coextensive with those of Hamilton County’s commissioners 

precincts 1,2, and 4 as the latter existed at the time of the 1989 legislation. 

p. 976 
Honorable Thomas E. White - Page 2 (IN-186) 

We note first that, although we find no Texas cases on point, it has been held 

elsewhere that “under ordinary rules of construction,” a delineation of a political 

subdivision’s boundary by reference to that of another political subdivision refers to 

the boundary as it existed at the time of such delineation. Boca Ckgu Sanitary Df.rz. 

v. State, 161 So.2d 529 (Pla 1964). We think such rules of construction should be 

applied in this instance. 

Presumably the legislature’s provision for the boundaries of the district in the 

1989 legislation resulted from a legislative determination as to what specific 

geographic portion of Hamilton County was in need of a hospital district. We think 

it unlikely, therefore, that the legislature would have intended that the occasions of 

the redrawings of internal commissioners precinct lines by a discreet political entity, 

Hamilton County, would have the effect of periodically relocating the district’s 

boundaries.1 County commissioners courts, under article V, section 18(a) of the 

Texas Constitution have broad powers to alter county commissioners precinct lines 

“from tune to time, for the convenience of the people.” See, eg., Attorney General 

Opinion 06091 (1945). If the legislature had intended that the county’s redistricting of its commissioners precinct would effect corresponding changes in the 

district’s boundaries, potentially of considerable magnitude, we think it would have 

specifically provided for such.2 

‘The Hamilton County Hospital Diict is a political entity discreet from Hamilton County. It 

has its own elected directors, and may impose taxes, issue bonds, make contracts, and exercise powers 

of eminent domain. See Acts l987,7Otb Leg., 2d CS., cb. 42, arts. 4,5,7,8. Tbcre are no provisions in 

the district’s legislation, however, for alteration of the disk& boundarieJ. 

we do not think It *wessaly in this wntext to reach the questioa whether the 1egisLatwc 

could constitionaUy have created an arrangement whereby the district’s boumlaries cbangcd in 

accordance with county redistsictiog. The possiilc consequences of such an arrangement-that 

persons who had voted for the district and its taxiag authority and paid tzrcs would suddenly End 

themselvw no longer in the district, and persons who had not previously been induded in the district 

would End themselves within it and presumably liable for taxes they had not voted for - might raise 

wastihuiod Issues. 

Also, please note that we do not understand you to ask about, and M consequently do not 

address here, problems tbc districl may encounter with respect to constitutional one-person-one-vote 

requirements, given Its continued use of commissioners precinct lines which Hamilton County has 

found it advisable, probably, at least in part, out of one-pcrson-onc-vote coosideratioas, to redraw. See, 

q., Awy Y. Midland Gwty, 3% U.S. 474 (1968). 

p. 977 
Honorable Thomas E. White - Page 3 (DM-186) 

SUMMARY 

The boundaries of the Hamilton County Hospital District, 

which are delineated in the district’s enabling legislation, as 

amended, by reference to the boundaries of Hamilton County’s 

commissioners precincts numbers 1.2, and 4, are not changed as 

a result of the county’s subsequent redistricting of said precincts, 

but remain coextensive with the boundaries of commissioners 

precincts 1, 2. and 4, as they existed at the time of the 

legislature’s designation of the district’s boundaries. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

RENEAHrcKs 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by William Walker 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 978