. April 4, 1950



### PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY GENeRAI.

Hon. L. E. King CountyAttorney Sabine County Hemphlll,Texae Opinion Ho. V-1032.

Re: Validity of the submitted Commlsslonersl

Court order changing the boundaries and number of justicepreDear Sirr cincts in the County.

You have requestedan opinion relative to the validity of the Comissioners~ Court’s order changing the boundariesand number of the jus$lceprecincts ln the County,whloh provides as follows:

“TRE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTYOF SABIRB I It is the order of the Sabine County Comuiasicners~ Court that Sabine County be redlstrlctetl into ?o\n, 4) Justice Precincts Instead of Into eight ( Q ) as It now exists.

“It ia ordered that PreclnetNo. 1 as it now exists be combinedwith and lnaltie Precinct No. 7 as it now exists, and thathereafter the Precinctwill be called HemphIll PrecinctNo. 1. -2- “It is the order of the Court that Precinct MO. 2 shall include the now existing Precincts 4. 5 and 8; that all of these three PrecZnctsbi,

combined,and that the Geneva Precinct IVo.

2 a8 it will be called, shall extend co-extensive with the Outer Boundaries of each of said old preolnctsnumbered 4, 5, and 8. -3- "It Is ordereb that the preclnotnow called IVo.

2, Plneland, shall be miabined with BrookelandPrecinct Ho. 3 as It now exists, and that the newly formed pealnot shall be oalled Plnelyl PrecinctRo. 3.

“It is ordered that’the old Precinct lo. 6 boundariesremain the same as orlginallj

*

.

. *Hon. L. E; King, page 2 (V-1032)

describedand that sale Precinct shall hereafter be called Bronson Precinct??a. 4,

"IT Is UNDERSTOODthat the legally elected and qualifiedJustices-of-the-Peace and Constable ln each of the four newly numbered Justice Precincts shall pemaln In office In the Justice PrecinctIn which they reside until their successors are elected and quallfled.
"There shall be continuousterms of Court in each of said four precinctsand the next day after return day of service shall **be** called a regular term of the Court.

"Done thls 10 day of January,A.D.. 1949"
Section 18 of Article V of the Constitutionof Texas provides:

"Raoh organized county ln the State now or hereafterexisting, shall be dlvlded from time to time, for the convenlenaeof the people, Into precincts,not less than four and not more than eight,

. . . In each such precinct there shall be tiected at each biennial election,one justice of the peace and one constable,each of whom shall hold his **office** for two years and until hls successorshall be elected and qualified;provided that In any precinct In uhich there may be a city of 8000 **or** more inhabitants,**there** shall be,, elected two justicesof ,the peace.
. . . In construingthe above quoted provisions,It was held ln Williams v. Castleman, 112 Tex. 193, 2'47 S.X. 263 (19221,that:



### ”

. . . The Constitution has prescribed that the power of determlnlngthe number of justiceprecincts,and of dividing the county into them, shall be exercised 'fromtime to time,'which means it has a potential rurlstence at all times, and the division,redlvlslon, or redetermlnatlon may be made at any time. State.ex rel. Dowlen v. Rlgsby, 17 Tex. Clv. App. 171, 43 S.W. 271, 273. In this case the questionat Issue MS aE to wha,t time theHon. L. E. ging, page 3 (V-1032)

mmIsslonera~ cqurt had authority to divldo or redlvlde a county into justicepreclnots. On this Issue the Court of Civil Appeals, through JusticeWilliams,who afterwardsbecame AseoalateJustloe of thls court, aiter quoting section 18 o? article 5 of the Constltution, saiai
“When the comlsslonerst aout was organized, ln pumuance of the Constltutlon and the laws passed~thereunder, It possessedall powers conferredby both. When the court was once established,

no leglalatlon

was needed to enable It to exercise the powers given by the above provisions,to divide the oounty Into preclnots, The dlrectlcm 18 plain and simple, and without condition or restrlbtlon, except that as to the number OS precinots.It is said that no procedure Is preaorlbedby which the power 'lato be exeralsed. I? any was neeaea, the statute auppu0a it, when it required that the proceedingso? the co& should be recorded la Its mlaute book. Rev. St. 1895, art. 1554. This was all that was necessary. The power to dlvlae the county lnto justlces~precincts Is also glvsm. by the statute,but not ln temns so explicit 8s thoaa used ln the Constitution. 1537. Rev. St. 1895, art. There can be no doubt that both Constltutlon and statute conier the power, and the only question is as to Its extent. It Is contemleathatallmltationupoathe power18 found in the oonstltutlonal provision

### rlxlng the terms o? oiflce o? preolnut officers,and that, since **they are**  to hold for two years, It follows that the preolnute oannot be ohangea during the terms, beams8 the powerto altop them would practicallyemble the oourt to aestroy the o??lce. The language o? the Constltutltm expresses.nosuch limitation. The dlvlslcu~ Is to be made '?rcm time to tlme.~ The reason for the dlvlslon Is to be the convenIonce of the people; and the judge, **both** as to time and convenience,IS the court. The llmItatlon contemledfor **by** appellant would **re** quire the insertion In the Constitutiono? a provisowhich the court cannot **read** Into it. The only l.imltatlon imposed serves to indicate the mope o? the power. That linitatlonre-. .

Hon. L. E. llingj page 4 (V-1032)

qu&vs as many as four, 

### and does not allow more than eight,preainate. But for It the coutlty might have been cut up into as many f;m;Sncts as the court saw proper to estabBy It the Intention Is made more maniresi that, within the 1iallts, the oollrt

Is to determlne the number. As to the time of making the dlvlslon,It Is equallyplain. The language 8rromtime to time, for the oonvenlence of the people,’ aleaplymeans that th0 oonvenlenceof the people, as judgedby the court, shall oontrol In detemlning the time when a dlvlslon Is proper. The phrase ‘from time to time’ repels the Idea .that It 

### was the 

### pwpose to fix any particular’ 

### the. 1 It

In Brown v. Meeks, 96 S.W .2d 839 (Tex. Civ. App. 1936, error d’iem.), the Court stated:
“There can be no questionaa to the power 0r the comIsslonerst oourt to oreate new justioepreoinots,

### ima tine to time, for the ooawenIenceOS the people. !I%ie power is glven to the oomnl.ssloners~ oourtsby the Constltution of Texas (artlole5, 8 18) **aad by**  the statuteso? this state. , . . “It appears that the ooma.tesIonerst court, In pnsslng the order of June 1, 1936, thought they were aolag a ialr thlng, In that they provided that any person who would live ln the new precincta?ter January 1, 1937,

-~ could become a candidateln the July primary

and the November general elections,and that .anyvoter who would live ln the new preoinct after January 1, 1937, oould vote at suoh primaryand general eleatlom, but the result 0r this order is that,when the new ~reolncte come Into exietenoe.al1 nreclnct o?rices will be vacant and the oanmlsslonersl court will be charnedwith the duty of fillian the&e preoinct offiaes bs amolntment.” (wsle add d ) 0

. In OpinionV-790 thls officeheld that the Cmmlssloners~ Court wae authotiaedto abolish exIstIng justice precinctsand oreate sew juetlaeprecincts ccaposed of the territoriesof exIeti.ng preainotswhich are abol- I ished at any time for the oonvenlenoeo? the people,.

Hon. L. E. King, page 5 (V-1032)

provided that there must be at least four and not more than 01 ftr t justiceprecincts In the county at all times. It was ther held that when such justicepreclnotsare abolished, the offlaes ln the old prealnotebecome vacant and the officersof the newly created justiceprecincts must be appointedby the Connnissloners~ Court.

In view of the foregoingyou are advised that the Ccmmilssloners~ Court o? Sabine County had the authority to redistrictthe justiceprecincts In the county so as to provide that the countywould consist of four justice precinctsrather than eight regardless of the territory the jultlceprecinctsnow Include.

We deem It advisable,however, to point out that ‘when new precinctscome Into existenceall.preclnct officeswill be vacant and the Coim&?.sIcmers’ Court 

### IS chargedwith the dutq of filllag these precinct officesby appointment. Brown v, Neeks, supra.

Therefore,when the order In questionwas passed a vacancywas created ln the precinct offices of SabIne County. It Is noted that the Cdssloners* Court provided “that the legally elected and quall?ledJustlces-of-thePeace and Conetab~each of the four nevly numbered Justice Preolnotsshall remain ln office ln the Justice R?eclnct in which hey reside until their eucoessors are elected and qua11?1ed.* Since thst portion of the order refers to nlegallycleated justices of the peace and constables’It Is our opinion that such an order oould not oonstltuteappointmentsto 1111 the vacancies createdby the order. You are 

### th0rid0m further L advised that the Co~sslonera~ Court should now fill these vacanciesby appointment.

Coaunlsslonerel

Courtr have authority to abolish existing justloeprecincts and create new justiceprecinctsat any time for the convenlence of the prople, provided there must be at least four and not more than eight justlae precincts in the county at all times. When new preclncte&mW Ant0 exlstenae,all preclnat offloesbecome vacant, and the Commlssloners

* Court Is c-3 ea with the duty of fllllng these meclnot o Ices by appointment.~lon. L. E. ping, page 6 (V-1012)

Tex. Conat.,Art. V, BBC. 18. Castleman, 112 Tex. 193, 247 S. gqgy3$&2,;

. Brown v. Meeka, 9 S.W.2d 839 (Tsx. **Clv.** App. 936, error df8m.f; opinionNo. V-790.

Yours verg truly,

APPROVED1

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

### county Affalm Division
Charles D. Mathsvs ExecutiveAssistaat
JRtmvrbh **PRIOE MNIEL**  Attommy General

By @.<-.:! ::,.

,. .A,.:,
0 J&n Reeves Assistant

.