: 

TRE A~O~EY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

April 24, 1975 

The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall 

Hale’ Co\ulty Attorney 

Hale County Courthoure 

Plainview, Texas 79072 

Opinion No. H- 592 

Re: Whether upon presentation of a petition a county is 

required to call an election 

to invalidate bonds already 

authorized. 

Dear Mr. Marshall: 

You have requested our opinion regarding whether upon presentation of a petition the Commissioners Court of a county is required to call 

an election to invalidate previously authorized road bonds. You describe 

the situation as follows: 

On June 15, 1974, the Commissioners Court of 

Hale, County, Texas requested an election to be 

held in Hale County to determine whether or not 

$l,OOO,OOO in bonds should be issued for the purpose 

of right-of-way improvements of the existing Highway No. 70 West from Plainview, Texas. The 

election resulted in defeat of the bonds by 70 votes. 

On July 1, 1974, the Commissioners Court 

ordered a second election to be held on August 6, 

1974. That election carried by 166 votes. 

In an open meeting of the Commissioners Court 

on September 9, 1974, a petition was presented to the 

Commissioners Court containing approximately 500 

signatures. That petition seeks a third election presumably under Article 742b [sic], Vernon’s Annotated 

Texas Civil Statutee, to determine again the issue of 

$l,OOO,OOO in bonds. No bonds have been issued purwant to the August 6. 1974 election. 

p. 2639 
The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall, page 2 (H-592) 

Under the provisions of article 752b, V. T. C. S., the commissioners court 

of a county is required to order an election: 

[u]pon the petition of the resident property taxpaying 

voters of any county equivalent in number to one 

percent or more of the total votes cast in said county 

in the last preceding general election for Governor 

. . . to determine whether or not the bonds of such 

county shall be issued for the purpose of the construction, maintenance and operation of macadamized, 

graveled, or paved roads and turnpikes, or in aid 

thereof, and whether or not taxes shall be levied on 

all taxable property of said county, subject to taxation, 

for the purpose aE.paying the interest on said bonds 

and to provide a sinking fund for the redemption thereof 

at maturity. . . . In lieu of the petition process described 

in this section the commissioners court of a county may, 

by majority vote, order the election. 

Since article 752b is applicable to all elections “to determine whether or 

not the bonds of such county shall be issued, ” ‘the statute could arguably be 

construed to apply to bond revocation elections. We believe, however, that 

a legislative intent not to include revocation elections within the scope of 

article 752b may be’inferred from the existence of article 717g, V. T. C. S., 

which provides a separate means for revoking previously authorized bonds: 

Section 1. The Commissioners Court of any county 

and the governing body of any incorporated city or town, 

including Home Rule Cities, are hereby empowered and 

authorized to order an election or elections for the purpose 

of determining whether the authortty to issue bonds theretofore voted but which have not at the time of ordering 

such election been sold and delivered ehall be revoked 

or canceled. The authority granted by this Act shall apply 

to unsold and undelivered bonds whether the same constitute 

all or only a portion of an issue. Such election shall be 

ordered, held, and conducted in the same form and manner 

and under the same procedure as that at which such bonds 

were originally authorized. . . . 

p. 2640 
; . - 

The Honorable Marvin F. Marshall, page 3 (H- 592) 

Article 717g clearly confers discretion upon the commissioners court 

as to whether to order a revocation election. Since article 752b is at best 

ambiguous regarding the inclusion therein of bond revocation elections, it 

is our opinion that article 717g provides the exclusive means by which previously 

authorized bonds may be revoked. Accordingly, a commissioners court is not 

required, upon presentation of a petition pursuant to article 752b, to call an 

election to invalidate previously authorized road bonds. 

SUMMARY 

A commissioners court is not required, upon 

presentation of a petition, to call an election for the 

purpose of invalidating previously authorized road 

bonds. 

APPROVED: 

Very truly yours. 

k 

A?&& 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

hcILLJ@ 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2641