Mr. R. L. Dunbar 

County Auditor 

Montague County 

Montague, Texae 76251 

Dear Mr. Dunbara 

Opinion No. M-696 

Rer Authority of Commissioners 

Court to pay for publication 

of plat in the absence of 

budgetary authority and 

declaration of emergency, 

and under stated circumstances. 

. You have advised us in your recent letter that on 

October 13, 1969; the Commissioners Court of Montague County. 

by order duly recorded in the minutes of the Court, redistricted 

Montague County into voting precincts under authority of Article 

2.04 of the Election Code of the State of Texas. 

You state that in accordance with Article 2.04 the 

Commissioners Court published its order in the issues of October 

23, 30 and November 6, 1969, of,a newspaper published in Montague 

County, and that such notice gave a description of the boundaries 

of the newly formed voting precincts in compliance with Article 

2.04. 

You further state that in the first week of May, 1970, 

hdiately prior to the primary election, the county commissioners, without an order of the Conrmiseioners Court having been 

Previously entered, caused a plat to be published in another 

newspaper published in Montague County, said plat being published 

in two issues during the same week., and that the plat reflected 

the boundaries of the newly formed election precincts in only 

the southern half of,the county. Thereafter, on May 11, 1970, 

the Conuaissioners Court, by a majority vote of 3-2, retroactively 

authorized the publishing of the plat in the second newspaper in 

May, 1970; and that now the County Auditor refuses to approve the 

publishers account. 

-3363- 
lb. R. L. Dunbar, page 2 (M-696) 

You have inquired whether the county auditor may 

lawfully approve payment of the account and whether the county 

may lawfully pay the account. 

In prescribing that certain publications must be made 

relating to a change in the voting precincts,' Article 2.04 

merely prescribes the minimum publication that is required under 

the statute. This minimum is mandatory. Attorney General's 

Opinion No. O-4623 (1942) and V-266 (1947). The statute does 

not purport to limit the publishing of the information. Whether 

additional publication of the same or related information is 

made is a disaetionary~matter within the power of the Conunfesioners Court to decide. The statute having expressly provided 

that the Commissioners Co&t shall.qive plblicity to the order 

redistrictins the votinu orecincts. the Court has broad disaetior 

in exercisinq that-&.- Canales-v. Cauohlin, 147 Tex. 169, 214, 

S.W.2d. 451 (1948). ,' 

We note that in this instance the first publication 

was made in a newspaper published in the northern end of the 

county whereas the second publication was made in a newspaper 

published in the soutbern end.of the county. We can not say 

that the Commissioners Court could not reasonably reach the conelusion that publication in the second paper was'necessary in 

order to reach voters in all parts of the county., and that the 

need for such publication constituted an emergency. Attorney 

General's OpinionNo. O-2498 (1940);' Certain presumptions 

attach to the,iralidity of the official acts of the Commissioners 

Court, Bemar f3oontv.v~ &tlev, 136'Tk. 354, 150 S.W.Zd 980,987 

(1941). 

It is our opinion, therefore, that the Commissioners Court 

if it has not already done so, may by proper order put the accoun 

covering publication in the second newspaper in line for approval 

by the county auditor and upon such approval the county may pay 

the account. 

-3364- 
or. R. L. Dunbar, page 3~ (M-696) 

The court would need to amend the budget under.the provisions for amendment set out in Article 6S9a-11, Vernon'8 Civil 

Statutes, including a finding of an emergencyand a statement of 

the facts creating. such emergency, as.well as order the publication of the plat:and payment of the fee for' the publication. 

As authority for the validity of an order amending 

the budget and finding 'an emergency after the obligation has 

been incurred, we quote as follows fromMorrison v. Xohler., 207 

S.W.2d, 951 (Tex.Civ.App.,1948, error ref. n;r.e..)r 

"We cannot agree with appellants,': contention, 

that the Crder of the Commissioners' Court-of Decem- 

.‘,-ber 9, 1946 ,:ainending the budget'for.the. sewera3. 

cbrmniasioner's'~~~road'$re'cincte 'is' void.. for.tbe reason 

that on such date no emergency then existed authors 

izing such amendment because the services of the engineers, for which the amendment was made to cover. had 

already been performed. We.find nothing in the budget 

law requiring the budget be amended at the time or before an obligation. not .included:in the budqet.could be 

legally assumed. we feel that it would be altogether 

too strict.a construction to place upon the prwisions 

of the budget laws governing counties to require that 

the budget'should be%amended at.,the time.the obligation 

was incurred. On. the.contrary..we believe that ~&he 

Commissioners' Court in amending any budget to cover 

any item of.'expense not ~already..covered ,in the .original 

budget should ;becontrolled by the facts and air-mstances as existed at the time the obligation was incurred or aasumed. Since the amendment of the budget 

in question was madeto .take care of and provide for 

payment for services theretofore rendered, the.question 

of whether an emergency authorizing the amendment of 

the budget existed, it was proper. for the Commiaaioners' 

Court to be governed by the facts and.circumstances, 

-3365- 
Mr. R. L. Dunbar, page 4 (M-696) 

existing on the date of the original employment, 

and when this is done we feel that a sufficient 

showing of an emergency authorizing the amendment 

of the budget in queetion was made. See Soears v. 

Citv of South Houston, 136 Tex. 218, 150 S.W.2d 74, 

and cases there cited." 

For additional authority to the effect that a Commissioners Court may ratify that which it could approve in the 

first instance, see Attorney General's Opinions Number M-635 

.(1970), WW-1332 (19621, M-164 (1967), and C-156 (1963), and 

the cases cited therein. 

To the extent that it conflicts with this opinion, 

Attorney General's Opinion Number O-6132 (1944), is hereby 

overruled. 

SUMMARY 

It is within-the discretionary power of a 

commissioner's court to elect to order publication 

of information relating to the redistricting of 

the county into voting precincts which is in addition to the minimum publication required by 

Article 2.04 of the Election Code of Texas. 

Attorney qeneral's Opinion No. O-6132 (1944) 

is overruled to the extent of any conflict with 

this opinion. 

The commissioner's court may by an order 

passed subeequently to the incurring of an obligation for such additional publication amend the 

budget and find an emergency so that the county 

auditor may apprwe and the county may pay the 

account for such publication 

n 

truly yo 8, 

& 

P " ct= 

. 

N 

neral of Texas 

-3366- 
Mr. R. L. Dunbar. page 5 (M-696) 

prepared by James 6. Swearinqen 

Assistant Attorney General 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co<hairman 

Austin C. Bray, Jr. 

Gordon Cass 

Terry Roberts 

Max Hamilton 

MEADEF. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFREDwALxER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

.-3367-