THE ATTORNEY GENERAL., 

OFTEXAS 

, 

Hon. James R. Strong 

County Attorney 

Panola County 

Carthage, Texas 

Dear Mr. Strong: 

Opinion No. V-1222 

Re: Sufficiency of the submitted 

wording for ballots at an 

election on levying farm-tomarket or flood-control taxes. 

You request the opinion of this office as to the sufficiency of a proposed form of ballot to be used in the submission ,to the 

voters in connection with the levy of the 30$ tax for farm-to-market 

roads or flood control, or both, as provided in Article 7048a, V.C.S. 

The proposed ballot is as follows: 

““FOR tax of not exceeding 20$ on each $100.00 

valuation, to be used for the construction and maintenance of Farm-to-Market and Lateral Roads. 

““AGAINST tax of not exceeding 20$ on each $lOO.- 

00 valuation, to be used for the construction and maintenance of Farm-to-Market and Lateral Roads. 

““FOR tax of not exceeding lO$ on e&h $100.00 

valuation, to be used for flood control, 

2 “‘AGAINST tax of not exceeding lO$ on each $lOO.- 

00 valuation, to be used for flood control.‘” 

Section 7 of Article 7048a provides, in part, as follows: 

6) 

o a o the proposition submitted to the qualified 

taxpaying voters at said election may provide that the 

tax at a rate not to exceed thirty cents (3Oc) on each 

One Hundred Dollars ($100) valuation may be used for 

the construction and maintenance of Farm-to-Market 

and Lateral Roads or for Flood Control purposes, either 

or both, as the Co&issioners Court may determir 

(inch event the ballots shall have written or printed 

thereon, “For the tax of not exceeding cents on 

each One Hundred Dollars ($100) valuat9on,’ and the 

contrary thereof, specifying the tax to be voted upon), 

or the proposition may provide for a specific maximum 

tax for Farm-to-Market and Lateral Roads purposes 

and a specific maximum tax for Flood Control purposes, 

-. 
Hon. Jaines R. Strong, Page 2 (V-1222) 

the total of the two (2) specific maximum taxes not to 

excscd thirty cents (30$) on the One Hundred Dollars 

($100) valuation (in which event the ballots shall have 

written or printed thereon, ‘For a Farm-to-Market 

and Lateral Roads tax of not exceeding cents and 

a Flood Control tax of not exceeding -cents, on 

the One Hundred, Dollars ($100) valuation,’ and the 

contrary thereof, specifying, the specific taxes to be 

voted upon) 0 ” (Emphasis added.) 

You will note that the stbtute states that the proposition may provide that the tax at a rate not to exceed thirty cents 

may be used for the construction and maintenance of Farm-toMarket and Lateral Roads E for Flood Control purposes, either 

or both. This language clearly contemplates that the proposition 

may cover only one of the two purposes. There is no reason why 

a proposition covering each purpose could not be submitted at the 

same election, In other words, two separate propositions may be 

submitted at the same election, one relating to the Farm-to-Market and Lateral Roads tax and one relating to the Flood Control tax. 

You have added the language “to be used for the construction and maintenance of Farm-to-Market and Lateral Roads” 

to the ballot form covering that proposition, and “‘to be used for 

flood control” to the ballot form covering that proposition. We 

think that the addition of this language is proper so that the voter 

will without question know the proposition upon which he is voting. 

SUMMAR,Y 

The Commissioners’ Court may order an election 

for the levy of a tax for farm-to-market and lateral 

roads, and for flood control, and fix a specific maximum tax for each purpose, but both together may not 

exceed 3Oe on the $100 valuation Both may appear on 

the same ballot, but in such form that the voters may 

adopt one and reject the other, or may reject both or 

adopt both* 

APPROVED; 

W. V. Geppert 

Taxation Division 

Everett Hutchinson 

Executive Assistant 

Charles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

LPL/mwb 

Yours very truly, 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

Assfntant