3. 

Hon. R. M. Dixon, chairman 

Board of Water Engineers 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-1 

Re: Are the provisions of 

Article 7880-23, V.C.S., 

in conflict with the 

provisions of Article VI, 

Sections 2 or 3(a) of the 

Constitution of Texas, In 

prescribing the qualiflcatlons of voters at a conDear Mr. Dixon: firmatlo? election? 

The question presented in your recent letter is whether the provision of Article 7880-23, V.C.E., prescrlblng the quallflcatlon of voters in a conflrmatlon election, is In contravention 

of Article VI , Sections 2 or 3(a) of the Constitution of Texas. 

In our opinion, the provisfone of Article VI, Section 3(a) of 

the Texas Constitution do not apply to the type of election 

required by Article 7860-23,v.c.s. 

Article 7880-23, V.C.S., provides that a water control and lmprovement district, before lncurrlng indebtedness, must call 

an election for the purpose of confirming the organization of 

the district bs, a vote "of the qualified resident property taxpaying voters. 

Article VI, Section 3(a) of the Constltutlon of Texas, reads, 

in part, as follows: 

"When an election is he.ld by any . . . 

defined district . . . for the purpose of 

$&suing bonds or otherwise lending credit, 

or expending money or assuming any debt, 

only qualified electors who o!!r, taxable 

property in the . . . dletrict . . . where 

such election is held, and who have duly 

rendered the same for,taxatlon, shall be 

qualified to vote . . .'I 

It iS clear that the Legislature of Texas, in enacting Chapter 

25, Acts of the 39th Legislature, 1925, intended that the confirmation electlon'be a step in the procedural process of 
2 

Hon. R. M. Dixon, page 2 (WW-1) 

creating a water control and lm&ovement dlstrlct. 

Cronln, 245 L.W. 2d 519 (Tex.Cfv.App., 1951). 

Lovett v. 

It 1s the election which gives life to the district and under such clrcumstances, it seems clear that the legislative intent, as outlined in Lovett v. Cronln, a, must be given effect. 

In the instant case, no taxes can be levled, money expended, or 

bonds issued based upon the confirmation .electIon, since the 

statute requires a separate vote upon these questions. 

7880, Sections 23, 32, 80 and 81, v.c.s. Accordingly; tEFr:e 

visions of Article VI, Section 3(a) of the Constitution of Texas, 

do not govern the qualification of voters at the confirmation 

election of a water control and improvement district. King v. 

Carlton Indewndent School District, lnfra: 

.- 

Article k, Section 2, of the Constitution of Texas, defines a 

quallf'led voter in this language: 

'Every person subject to.none of the foregoing dlsquallficatlons who shall have attained the age of twenty-one (21) years and 

who shall be a citizen of the Unlted.Stat.es 

and who shall have resided in.thls State.one 

(1) year next preceding an eleetlon ind the 

last six (6) months within the district .: 

in which such person offers to vote, shall'b~ 

deemed a qualified elector . . .n 

The.courts'o'f this State have held that then Constitution ixclusfvely. presorlbes.the quc %liflcatlon of the voters and the 

-a slature 1s without the pouer to prescribe any other standng v. Carlton Indevindent School Disk&, 

~~'s~~: 24 408 (19%) 

TeX. 

; Snelson v. Murray, 252 S.W. 26 720 (Tex. 

19%). ref. n.r.e.; 

wooi P&c Eervlce,,lll S.W. 

ref;, Kay v. Schneider, 110 

We agree with your position that the provisions of Article VI, 

Section 2, of the Constitution of Texas, must be superimposed 

over th& provisions of Article 7880-23, V.C.S., so as to require 

that the election for the ~c~nflrmatlon of a water control &d 

improvement district be.submltted to those qualified electors as 

defined in that provision of the Conetltutk of Texas. King v. 

Carlton Indeuendent School District, supra; Jordan v. Cru&lllp(- 

ton, 149 Tex. 237, 231 S.W. 26 641 1950 . 
3 

Hon. R. M. Dixon, page 3 (WW-1) 

SUMMARY 

The provisions of Article VI, Section 3(a) 

of the Constitution of Texas, do not govern 

the election required by Article ‘(880-23, 

V.C.S. That statute provides requirements 

beyond those set forth by Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of Texas, and 

these additional requirements must be dlsregarded as unconstitutional. 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General 

ERM-s 

APPROVED: 

Elbert M. Morrow 

Assistant