OFFICE **OF** THE A’lTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN

Honorsblw Bert Ford, **Administrator** Texas Liquor Oontrol Board Austin, Texns

Dear sir:

Your lettwr of Jo opinion **of this**  **dapertment reach**  **a8 follower:**  equwetlng the **stated** therein

find (Ilet**Xarrls Oounty,**  IIopinion as to the areas **referred** to in

tlng to inoorporatw the rtcte8 latter, It i8 attewhwd hereto of with rwquwmt that an In armwer to the tallowing nlng South Houston 8ohool Dirnow Sohool DlstrlatNo, CS, and. Wwbrtwr Sohool DlatrlotHo. 10, in Barr18 Oountyt

"1. Was the loo81 ogtlon wlwation whioh ~88 held Owtobwr 9, 1912, In the thxww wboow dweoribed eohooldlwtriotw a valid looal Option l lwotion?Bon. Bert Ford, Page 2.

*2. Did thbAmendments or 1933 or 1935 to section 20 dr Artlole **16 of**  Texas **Conrtltution** efrwot the three above dwsorlbed sohool distrlots 80 that they couldnot now be dwfinsd as *dry areas,* sinoo said rohool diatrlotewere in faot

**“ dry**  **areasen iron**  **Ootobar** 9, 1912 (date of 

### Looal Option Xlwotion) to August 24, 19359
"3. Are the three eborw desorlbwtlaohool distriots *dry areas* as defined In Artlelw 666, swotlon 23 or Penal Code or Twxae?

RI. Should the sale of lntorlowting liquors within the desoribedllmlts of the threw atore88id eohool dintrlotr (whiohrohool dlatrlots
are dw8oribwd by meter and bounds in the Report of Election made sad rwoordwd In Poltunw 0, at pcry 340, of thekSlnutw8of EleobJ.on of Harris County, Toxar),be prohibited,exoept In 80 far a8 itmay 8ffwot the sale OSwine8 

### as 8aora;nsntsl purpo8er and alooholiorWsulant8 used a8 mwdlalne ln oaam of aotual sioknessupon the presorlptfon, of a rwaer praotloing phyaloianTR
Artlolw 16, Swotion 20, of the Twxaa Conetltotlon adoptedat an wlwotian held August 11, 1891, and effeotlrr Swptwxbwr 22, 1.891 provider%

"TheLwgisLaturwahall, at It8 firet aw8slon, wnaot a lawwhereby the qualified **voter8 of**  any oounty, **justiow*e** preolnot, town, oitJ (or suoh 8ubditislonof a oountyaamay be designated by the Oowim~8s~ionwrs' oourt oi said oounty) may, by a majorityvote,~deteminw.fro0 timw to time whether the se10 of latoxloatiugliquors ah811 be prohibited wlthls the prweorlbwd llmit8.w

Pursuant to said Constitutionalprovision the State I*girlotureemoted the looal option **stetutw8, Artiolerr**  **6715-** F93Q **of** -the Revtiwu **Uivil Statute8**  ot 1911, end a8 etatwd In .$he brief aooompenylng.yourinquiry, the above quoted rewtion **86 of**  **Artiolw 16**  **of** theTexas **Constitution** aud the above Untionwd hrtlolw8 **of t&w**  Rw~viewd **Oiril Statute8**  **of** 1011,were ~ii~ full forow and effectwhen the loowl option eleotlos ingoa,Bert Ford, E&ire3.

,pstion wea held In 1912. Seotion 20 of Artlolw 16 of ttw 5t.wtw OonstitutiOn,supre,was never amended

### orohangad until Ray 24, 1910whan t&w WntirW State o? Texas was proolaimwd dry Undera Stats-widewlwotion held i&y 24, 1919.

**Artiolw** 5715 

### of the Revised Civil Stwtutar of 1911 prwlide8inpart1

=Thw ~O%tid88iOZlWr~’ oourt or waoh Oounty in the State,whenever they deem It wxpwaiwnt,may order an wlwotion to bw held by the quSlf?iwd **voters** of said oounty, or any Oommla8ionwr'8 or jlletlow's prwotiot, or eohool dietriot, or any two ormore o? allrSUOhpOliti&Sl SUbdiViSiOllP Of 8 OOUlltY,

68 IllBy be designatedby the wommiasIonwrs* ocurt of said oounty, to determinewhether Or not the eaie o? intOXiORthg liquOr8 shall bW prohibited in suoh OOuUty,Or OO~i88iOnWr*8 Or jUStIOW'8PX'WOitLOt,
or rohOo1dlstrlot, 

### orany two 

### ormoreof any SuWh politioal subditIslon8Of euwh oounty, 

### or In any torrn Or oity prorfded, It shall be the duty of 88id 0048I (be+‘: oourt to order the wlwotion

i
as 8forwsaidwhwnwvwr petltionwd so to do by as many aa two hundred~andflity voters in 

### any oounty, or ?i?ty rotwrs In any other politioal sub- : diriaion of'the county or aohooldistrlat, an& it Shall be dw8ignrtwdby eaid ooUr0, or In any wlty or town, aa the ~aaemay.bw.

. . . -

**38** have oerwfully OoMidsred **Artiolw 6728,**  Revised 5Iril**Statutes** of 1911,whioh provibes In part1

*At any thw withIn thirty days after the rws\llt

a? the wlewtioa has bwwn deolarwd, any qualliiedvoter of the oounty, justiow*speOfnOt or SUbdiViSiOnO? SUOh OOUnty; or:any twwn or oity o? suoh oounty ia whioh suoh wlwotionha8 been held,may OOnteSt the oity wlwotion in tha dietriot oourt o? the oounty Inwhloh auoh elwotlonhas been held.

. . . and provided, furthwr, that I? no Oonteat of said wleotion ie filed and proseouted in the
mmner andwithin the timw provided above, it shall be oonolusIrwlypre8uRed that said wlwotion as held anb th8

### reeultthereof dwolarwd,
are in all rwspeotw valid and binding upon all OOUl'tS;

provided, also that pending suwh ocmteat the en?orowment

### oflooal option law inBen. Bert Ford, Page QI

such twrritorr shell not be muspwwlwd, end that 

### all law8 end pert8 of law6 in wonfllot herewithbe and the 8amw are hwrwby repealed."

However, the **Court** of Criminal Appeals o? Texas iu

xx Paste Hmey, 103 s. I:'. 1155 rmd Xx Pertw Banks, 103 S. w. ~136, oonstruingS. R~. B. No. 4lS, kots of the Twenty-Fifth &wglslature,which u(aaen Aot amending rirticlw 3384 authori8- @g local option eleotlorw in school dietriot 88 subdivision8 &$ the oounty and Artlole 402 of the Peiml Code of ll3QS(See Urwe of the Twenty-EighthLegislature, pwgw 55, Chapter 40) the sale of liquor8 in eohooldlstrfote adopting loos1 wp- &ionwas **made**penal, held that a eohool diotrirrt is not 8 .polltloalsubdivieion 0s 8 county 0s like kind as those **em mereted**  in the Constitution,and a loos1 option elwotlon held in a school **distriot was** without authority of law end void. The abovementioned statute oons$Uwrwd by the Court of his&a- &PAppeal8was.alnroet id~ntioalwith Artlolw S71S, supra. Ww ~&VW railed to rind any we88whwrw the appellate ~oourts 

### or:, this 968tW have oon8truwd~Artlole5713, supre, but;it i8~oUr e$iItion

that what age said in **Ex** Pertw -WY, **‘ acpra,**  with 

### rwfwrenow

to 8 

### aidler statute is equally appllcablw to Artislw S718, supre. Therefore, in enswwr to your first question, 1% is our opinion that the local option wlwotion rhioh ~88 held Ootobwr 9, 1912 in.thw three above described SOhOOl **diS-. triote**  wee not a valid looal Option eieotioa and that suoh 16waloption electionheld In the above dwaorlbwdsoh8ol ~distriots

was without 8uthorlty of law and told.

570 here OOMtidWrWdthe OLIBOOf B18inW VS. StStW, 139 6, V. (8) 792wharw en attookwas made upon the proowedingr of 8n elewtlonwhereby **Just%00** ~Preoinot

### l?umber7 0s Dallas Qounty, TWxas, wa8 voted dry 

### in 1890. Judge Graves 0s the court 0s Anal Appeals of Tome said;

-Thiswttaok cone8 too late. This attaok should here bwenmedw withIn sixty days SitOr the takingwfre0t 0s Yenetw Bill Ho. 31, Chapter VIII 0s the Denwral biV8 of the ThirtiethLegislature, First Called SWSSiOJl, page 447, whloh bwo8ms effeotive ninety dwyc after May 14, 1907. Failingwhloh, the law oonclusivwlypresume8 that the election **as** held and the result 88 therein dwolerwdare in sll respwota valid and~binding on the OOurtIS."Bon. Bert Ford, Page 5.

X0 do not think that thle aase 1s appllcabla t,u the quSStlonS intolved in this opinion. It is our further oplnlon that Article 5728, supra, does not **make** valid the above mmtloned looal option aleotlon In viaw of the holding of the Gourh of Criminal Appeala **in Xx**  **Part0** Haney **and** Ex Parte Banks, sup-a.
The oaaa of Rookholt va. State, 126 S. :i'. (2) 4SS holds that upon the repeal of the mnendment to the Conatltutlon (Saotion 20, Artiolo 16) prohibiting the aale, eto. of lntoxlsating liquor8 in this Stats restored to eaoh oounty 

### or!subdirleion thereor lte rormar status rolatlte to prohibiting the eala of intoxloating liquors a@it axistad barora the aUoptlon of the Conetitutional amen&nenent.

The ease of Stephens ‘16. State, 133 S. W, (2) 130 holds that all areas that were bry by virtue of loo81 option $Matlon prior to ths adoption of the Conatltutlon, Artlole &6Sootlon 20, ln 1010 wore expressly rtwtored to **rush statur**  .by the amendamnt of 1935, and the Laglslatare had a rl(@t to prosoribo a penalty iOr violation thereof, WhlOhit did in the Texas Liquor Oontrol Aot.

**AI)**It is our opinion that the local option eleatlon **hb$d** Ootober 9, 1912 ln tha three above desorlbod sohool dis

### trlotswas an lm~lld loaal option eleotlon, we do 

### not think thet tha amendment of 193s or 1933 to %otlon 20 of Artlola **16 0i**  **the** Texas **Constitution** 

### made said SOhOOl

### dlatrlota dry
armas beoausa said dlatrlota ware not dry area8 by virtue oi 

### a legal looal option eleotlon prior to theea amendmontr. Therefore, your reoond **queotion** la **answered**in tha negative.

hrtiola 666-23 of Vernon’8 Annotated Penal Oode dbflnes **Ary** areaa. St Is our opinion that the eboVe Berorlbsd school **dietrlat~** are not dry araaa aa defined by aaid Amlola 666-25. This answera **rour** third qUaIiblOn.

With referanoe to your fourth queetioa and in rlew or the above oited authorltte,a~and feat@, it 1s our opinion that the aale OSlntorloatlng liquor8 oannot be legally prohibited wlthln the liDlit of the three named sohool dlatriota, on tha proponltlon that euoh dietrlote were **“ dry**  araasW by virtue of raid looal option aleotlon mntloned above. .-_ Yours very Wuly