OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAg 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Ralph 

County Attorney 

Lubbaak, Toxar 

Brook 

twa ~huadred and twontp 

an~alnstem thaiman& 

~934~1, end in 

pulation of no loae than 

three hundred and twentyIndependent Sahoal Diltriota, and prO?idad that 

euoh pstdtion mu8t be ftl~& with the Board Of 

Trusteea at lmst sixty (60) day8 beforo the 

date of m&oh sleotloa. The tern or orrloe of 

an elOQtt36 Tax amsensor ana aoueotor ohall 

be Sor two (2) years frc+m the &Ate Of eieotion. 

It iril also provsdea that the Board of Truetees 

shall appoint a Tax Ame#aor 6na Colleotar upoa 

reoei)t of a petition signed by twenty-fita 
, 

Eon. i*lph Brook - Page 2 

(25) per cent OS the qualified voter6 in 

suoh Indaipeniient School LUatrlot, but provlded that it petition8 requestlug both 

eleotlon and appointment are riled at the 

~~BND t&m, the potitlon whioh I8 rigned 

by the l.ar(gr8t number o? qualified ratrrrr 

shrru prevail, and the Boara of Truateea 

ahall follow the moae ol seleotion of a 

Tox keresaor and COlleotOr reqUeeteh by 8uoh 

petltlon.’ 

ATtiol* 3, Sea. 56, State Canrtlt~tion, 

rorbiaa the pareaga of anp looal or epeoial law 

%egulating the affairs al . . . 8ohool dietriotat 

oraattng orrlcen in . eohaol d18trIotr.a 

f&iii& oortab. braoket Le&ilatlon Invalid IR 

Biller v. El Paso Countr, 150 s. w. (2) 1000, the 

supream Caprt eaiac 

WatwIth@taniilng the ebove aonrtitutioarl grOViaIon, the 00wtn reoognlnr In 

the ksgirlature a rather broad power to 

make elaasifI@atiom ror legirlatire purpates aa to raaot lawe for the regulation 

thereof, even though awh legielatlon may 

be applIaabJ.e only to a partioular olaaa 62, 

in fact affeot only the inhabitentm of a 

partIo&r looalitp( but auoh legislation 

must be intended to apply uniromly to all 

who lasy eoae wIthin,the alarroifiaation designated in the Aot, and the claO8lriaation 

must be br@aQ enough to Inoludo a rubetantial 

alma end wet be baaed on cheracteriitfor 

lagltliuatsly dietinguiahfng suoh ol.am from 

othera with respeot to the pub110 purpo8e 

aought to be ecaomp.Uehea by.the propodled 

legielation. In other worcle, there must be 

e eubstantial memn ?or the classiffaotion. 

Tt muet not be a acre arbitrary derioe reaortea to for the purpose or giring what 

Is, In fad, a looal law the appearanee of a 

general law.* 

l&err the Aot in question meet the txst laid 

dowa iza the hliller V, is1 Faeo case’0 (See elm Berar 
Eon. Ralph Brook - Page 3 

County v. Tynani 97 s. 3. (2) 4-67, 128 Tsx. 223). 

Note the respeotire populatione or the 

follow- aounties, aocording to the 1940 oeneus; 

The braokets In question quite neatly pIclcc~ 

out Titus and Lubbook Counties ironi all the rent. 

Aot, If YalId, would apply to thoee two oountiee alone. 

We are unable to iin6 zany reaeon whateoever for the 

so-oallsd oleseIfIoetion. Ueing shier 3ustIoe Alexander’s words in Miller v. El Paso Couatr, eupra, 

*whatever difference thare la In population doea not 

appear to be material to the objeots sought to be 

aacomplishedd” br the propored legislation. 

It 18 our opinfon that 6aia IIowa Bill 618 

aontrarenneo Artiole 3, Sec. 56, of the State Corutitution, ana Ie therefore void. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNNX GlWBRhL OF TEXAS