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 (I letXarrls Oounty, 

II opinion 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 Dlstrlat No, CS, and. 

Wwbrtwr Sohool Dlatrlot Ho. 10, in Barr18 Oountyt 

"1. Was the loo81 ogtlon wlwation whioh ~88 

held Owtobwr 9, 1912, In the thxww wboow dweoribed 

eohool dlwtriotw a valid looal Option l lwotion? 
Bon. Bert Ford, Page 2. 

*2. Did thb Amendments or 1933 or 1935 to 

section 20 dr Artlole 16 of Texas Conrtltution 

efrwot the three above dwsorlbed sohool distrlots 

80 that they could not now be dwfinsd as *dry 

areas, * sinoo said rohool diatrlote were in faot 

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

Option Xlwotion) to August 24, 19359 

"3. Are the three eborw desorlbwtl aohool 

distriots *dry areas* as defined In Artlelw 666, 

swotlon 23 or Penal Code or Twxae? 

RI. Should the sale of lntorlowting liquors 

within the desoribed llmlts of the threw atore88id eohool dintrlotr (whioh rohool dlatrlots 

are dw8oribwd by meter and bounds in the Report 

of Election made sad rwoordwd In Poltunw 0, at 

pcry 340, of the kSlnutw8 of EleobJ.on of Harris 

County, Toxar), be prohibited, exoept In 80 far 

a8 it may 8ffwot the sale OS wine8 as 8aora;nsntsl 

purpo8er and alooholio rWsulant8 used a8 mwdlalne 

ln oaam of aotual siokness upon the presorlptfon, 

of a rwaer praotloing phyaloianTR 

Artlolw 16, Swotion 20, of the Twxaa Conetltotlon 

adopted at an wlwotian held August 11, 1891, and effeotlrr 

Swptwxbwr 22, 1.891 provider% 

"The LwgisLaturw ahall, at It8 firet aw8slon, 

wnaot a law whereby the qualified voter8 of any 

oounty, justiow*e preolnot, town, oitJ (or suoh 

8ubditislon of a oounty aa may be designated by the 

Oowim~8s~ionwrs' oourt oi said oounty) may, by a majority vote, ~deteminw. fro0 timw to time whether 

the se10 of latoxloatiug liquors ah811 be prohibited 

wlthls the prweorlbwd llmit8.w 

Pursuant to said Constitutional provision the State 

I*girloture emoted the looal option stetutw8, Artiolerr 6715- 

F93Q of -the Revtiwu Uivil Statute8 ot 1911, end a8 etatwd In 

.$he brief aooompenylng.your inquiry, the above quoted rewtion 

86 of Artiolw 16 of the Texas Constitution aud the above 

Untionwd hrtlolw8 of t&w Rw~viewd Oiril Statute8 of 1011, were 

~ii~ full forow and effect when the loowl option eleotlos in 
goa, Bert Ford, E&ire 3. 

,pstion wea held In 1912. Seotion 20 of Artlolw 16 of ttw 

5t.wtw OonstitutiOn, supre, was never amended or ohangad until 

Ray 24, 1910 whan t&w WntirW State o? Texas was proolaimwd dry 

Under a Stats-wide wlwotion held i&y 24, 1919. 

Artiolw 5715 of the Revised Civil Stwtutar of 1911 

prwlide8 in part1 

=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 or more o? 

allr SUOh pOliti&Sl SUbdiViSiOllP Of 8 OOUlltY, 68 IllBy 

be designated by the wommiasIonwrs* ocurt of said 

oounty, to determine whether Or not the eaie o? 

intOXiORthg liquOr8 shall bW prohibited in suoh 

OOuUty, Or OO~i88iOnWr*8 Or jUStIOW'8 PX'WOitLOt, 

or rohOo1 dlstrlot, or any two or more of any SuWh 

politioal subditIslon8 Of euwh oounty, or In any 

torrn Or oity prorfded, It shall be the duty of 

88id 0048I i (be+‘: oourt to order the wlwotion 

as 8forwsaid whwnwvwr petltionwd so to do by as 

many aa two hundred~and flity voters in any oounty, or ?i?ty rotwrs In any other politioal sub- 

: diriaion of'the county or aohool distrlat, an& 

it Shall be dw8ignrtwd by eaid ooUr0, or In any 

wlty or town, aa the ~aae may.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 

qualliied voter of the oounty, justiow*s peOfnOt or SUbdiViSiOn O? SUOh OOUnty; or:any 

twwn or oity o? suoh oounty ia whioh suoh 

wlwotion ha8 been held, may OOnteSt the oity 

wlwotion in tha dietriot oourt o? the oounty 

In whloh auoh elwotlon has been held. . . . 

and provided, furthwr, that I? no Oonteat of 

said wleotion ie filed and proseouted in the 

mmner and within the timw provided above, it 

shall be oonolusIrwly pre8uRed that said wlwotion as held anb th8 reeult thereof dwolarwd, 

are in all rwspeotw valid and binding upon all 

OOUl'tS; provided, also that pending suwh ocmteat the en?orowment of looal option law in 
Ben. Bert Ford, Page QI 

such twrritorr shell not be muspwwlwd, end that 

all law8 end pert8 of law6 in wonfllot herewith be 

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, oonstruing S. R~. B. No. 4lS, kots of the Twenty-Fifth 

&wglslature, which u(aa en 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-Eighth Legislature, pwgw 55, Chapter 40) 

the sale of liquor8 in eohool dlstrfote adopting loos1 wp- 

&ion was made penal, held that a eohool diotrirrt is not 8 

.polltloal subdivieion 0s 8 county 0s like kind as those emmereted in the Constitution, and a loos1 option elwotlon 

held in a school distriot was without authority of law end void. 

The above mentioned statute oons$Uwrwd by the Court of his&a- 

&P Appeal8 was. alnroet id~ntioal with Artlolw S71S, supra. Ww 

~&VW railed to rind any we88 whwrw the appellate ~oourts or:, 

this 968tW have oon8truwd~Artlole 5713, 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 

16wal option election held In the above dwaorlbwd soh8ol 

~distriots was without 8uthorlty of law and told. 

570 here OOMtidWrWd the OLIBO Of B18inW VS. StStW, 139 

6, V. (8) 792 wharw en attook was made upon the proowedingr of 

8n elewtlon whereby Just%00 ~Preoinot l?umber 7 0s Dallas Qounty, 

TWxas, wa8 voted dry in 1890. Judge Graves 0s the court 0s 

Anal Appeals of Tome said; 

-This wttaok cone8 too late. This attaok should 

here bwen medw withIn sixty days SitOr the taking wfre0t 0s Yenetw Bill Ho. 31, Chapter VIII 0s the Denwral 

biV8 of the Thirtieth Legislature, First Called SWSSiOJl, 

page 447, whloh bwo8ms effeotive ninety dwyc after May 

14, 1907. Failing whloh, the law oonclusivwly presume8 

that the election as held and the result 88 therein 

dwolerwd are 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 

&6 Sootlon 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, WhlOh it 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 distrlots was 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 OS lntorloatlng 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