DAN MORALES 

.ATTcmNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of the JZlttornep Qkneral 

&Mate of ?Itexae 

September 3.1993 

Honorable Warren Chisum 

Chair 

Committee on Environmental Regulation 

Texas House of Representatives 

P.O. Box 2910 

Austin, Texas 78768-2910 

Dear Representative Chisum: 

Opiion No. DM-252 

Re: Whether article Ix, section 1 of 

the Texas Constitution authorizes the 

legislature to consolidate two existing 

camties (RQ-495) 

You have asked us to determine whether article DC, section 1 of the Texas 

Constitution authorizes the legislature to consolidate two existing counties. You explain 

that several of your constituents in Dallam and Hartley counties are interested in 

consolidating the two counties, presumably for reasons of cost et3iciency.r We conclude 

that article IX, section 1 of the Texas Constitution does not authorize two existing 

counties to consolidate. 

Article Df, section 1 of the Texas Constitution reads in pertinent part as follows: 

Section 1. The Legislature shag have power to create counties 

for the convenience of the people subject to the following provisions: 

. . 

Second. Within the territory of any wunty or wunties now 

existing no new county shag be created with a less area than seven 

hundred square miles, nor shaII any such county now existing be 

reduced to a less area than seven hun&ed square miles. No new 

counties shah be created so as to approach nearer than twelve miles 

of the wunty seat of any county from which it may in whole or in 

part be taken. . When any prt of a county is stricken off and 

attached to, or created into another wunty, thepart stricken off shah 

be holden for and obliged to pay its proportion of all the liabilities 

then existing, of the county from which it was taken, in such manner 

as may be prescribed by law. 

‘Youhave~l~a~~a~,~~aMorrEfIicicntGovcmmcnt: AnAdysisof 

the Pmposition of Merging DalIam and Hartley Counties,” that estimates that a wasolidatc4 county 

anaoaUy will spend at leas1$382.000.00 less than the amount the two amtics will spend separately. 

p. 1311 
Honorable Warren Chisum - Page 2 (DMr252) \ 

Third. Noparf of any existing wunty shag be detached from it 

and attached to another existing county until the proposition for such 

change shag have been submitted, in such manner as may be provided 

by law, to a vote of the electors of both wunties, and shall have 

received a majority of those voting on the question in each. 

[Emphasis added.] 

In our opinion, the language of article JX, section 1 indicates that the legislature 

may attach to a county only a portion of another wunty, not the whole of the other 

county. Consolidating two counties-i.e., attaching the whole of one county to the whole 

of another-contravenes the wnstitutional prohibition against reducing an existing county 

to an area less than 700 square miles.2 Furthermore, section 1 repeatedly refers to a “part” 

of a wunty.s 

An examination of the statutes the legislature has enacted pursuant to article IX, 

section 1 indicates that this construction is wnsistent with the legislature’s construction of 

the section. Throughout chapter 71 of the Local Government Code, which governs the 

creation of counties, the legislature speaks of organikg a new county out of a part or 

parts of an existing county or wunties. See. e.g., Local Goti Code $4 71.011, 71.013 

(providing for election for detachment or attachment of wunty territory), 71.021(a), 

71.022(a), 71.023(a), 71.025 (providing for organization of counties), 71.031, 71.032, 

71.033, 71.034 (providing for apportionment of county indebtedness). In our opinion, 

therefore, the legislature envisions only a situation in which a portion of a county is 

detached Tom an existing county and attached to another county; the county from which 

the territory is taken wntinues to exist as an autonomous county. This, of course, does 

not describe a situation such as the one you propose, in which the whole of two counties 

are merged into one. Consequently, we do not read article IX, section 1 of the Texas 

Constitution to authorize the consolidation of entire wunties.4 

31n amhasl to ankle IX, section 1 d the Texas Constitution, article VIII, s&ton 8.01 ef the 

Model state ccastihltion requues a le8islanuc to ‘pmvide by 8cacral law. . . for muheds aad proccdure5 

of, . . merging, consolidating [ccaaties].” NATIONAL M~?~CIFLU LEML& MODEL STATE ~ON~~V~ON 

art. VIII, 8 8.01, al 15 (6th cd. 1%3); see a/so id. 0 8.03, at 117; id art. XI, g 11.01, at 19; 2 D. BRUEN, 

THECON~TUTION OF THE STATUJFTEXASZ AN ANN~TATEDAND~~M~ARAT~~EANALY~IS~~~ (1977). 

‘We note tba1 Ihc Texas Sqmu hurl, in Robbins v. Limestone Corm@, has said that tk Texas 

Chsdhdion authoriws the legislatu~ te amsclidate two cr more coaatics. Robbins Y. Limesrom County 

268 SW. 915.919 (-Rx. 1925). ‘Tkannt’s pIonauremnt was, howcvu, dida. 

p. 1312 
Honorable Warren Chisum - Page 3, (DIG252) 

SUMMARY 

Article IX, section 1 of the Texas Constitution does not 

authorize the legislature to consolidate two existing wunties. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

Fkst Assistant Attorney General 

MARYKELLER 

Deputy Attorney General for Litigation 

RENEAHICKS 

State Solicitor 

MADJXJDJE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opiion Committee 

Prepared by Kymberly K. Oltrogge 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 1313