OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN



## a0n. William F. Jackson **COUllty AttOrIBy**  YfaailerCounty Hempstead, Texas I)ear 3'~. Jaokeon:

%'ehave received reoent date endquote from~I'

subdivisions. Onthe 22d day of Maroh, 1544, the Commissioners' Court rescindad its original order f.o% oounty-wide stock law election andcalled sn election to be held in the two subdivisions uhioh, taken together, compose the entire area 

## or 'kaller County. Theelection was held and stook law oerried in the greater Tortion of the county andrailed to oarrp In what wasdesignated as :?ubdivision NumberTvo. On July 10, another petition wasgesented for county

### Eon.‘Xllior? y. Jackson, ?age 2

Ada stook law eleotion under Artiale 6954, which MS sipped by somethree hundred freeholders of Yeller County, andno action was taken bythe Cohvnissioners~ Court on such petition, pending your opinion.
*The question raised isl Upon the filing 

## or the 

## rim petition ror a oounty-wide hook law eleotlon, wa6it ,mandetorg upon the Commisaionerel Court 

### to oall a oounty-wide 

### stoak ;;x&eleotion cr oould they - - at their diaore-

-- oonaider petitions therearter riled which, in etreot, oalled ror simultaneous eleotlone in two arbitrarily designated subdivisions? It la myopinion that the provisions or Artiole 6954 makes it mandatory upon the Commiesionersl Court to order a oounty-wide stock lsw elaotion upon the presentation of apetition signed by 100 free-holders of ?ialler County and that until suoh eleotlon is ordered andheld, any election covering eubdivieiona or the oounty would be void.

“The election which waaheld resulted in the

## roilowingvote: Btook LawPreoinot Number One, which inoluded the greater portion oi 3aller County, voted in favor or the stook law. In whet
wan deaigrmted as Stock LawPreolnot NumberTwo, whloh included the smaller QOX%iOn or the oounty, the vote was against a stock law.,,
*Artdole 6964provi&es that:
*Wheneveran eleotlon is held under the

## QrWisiOna0r this chapter ror any oounty or subdivision, no other election ror auahpurpose ehall be held within the looality 

### ror the spaoe or twelve months thereafter; but the defeat of the proposition ror a county shall not prevent another election ircxnbeing held imediately thereeiter for any subdivision of suoh oounty, nor shall a defeat oi the propoaition for any nubdivision prevent an eleotion from being held i!rzedietely tt-erearter for the entire aounty.’Ifon. ::lllim ?. Zacksoc, page 3

The opponents or stock law are oontending that beoauso tha Comnissloners~ Court ordered simultaneous elsotlona in the two subdivisions, this should be construed es a oounty-wide stook law election whloh would prevent a oalllng of a oounty-wide stook law election upon the ~0tAtsOIx

## or the raquisits number 

## ore1aotors
nowfiled berora the Comissioners~ Court; but it is obvious that ii tha atatutas mm:8so oonotrued, the purpos.06 or the atook laws would be nulliiled andshy oounty-rida stook law eleotlon oould ba defeated on the petition of anyminority composed of ea msnya8 rirty qud+ri0d electors.

“1 advised the Coauaissionars~ Court that a oounty-wide etook law should be oallad on the iirst petition, andI amof tha opinion that the election vihioh was oalled for the two rubdlvlslons ia void andthat the Connissioners* Court did not have authority to oall the aleotlon on the ssoond petition filed. It is myrurthar opinion that upon the petition of 100 or more quallflod eleotors it beoomaa xnandatoryuponthe Oornmissloners~ Court to call a county.-wlda stook law eleotlon. In other words, the question raised la not whether the Commlaslonars’ Court has authority to call the eleotion, but 

### whether they have tha dlmretlonary power to reruse to call en eleotion upon the petition ot the raqulalte number of elsotore. petitioning then for a oounty-wide atook law sleotlon under Artlola 6954.

“It la myopinion that even though the entire county did vote slzcultaneously in the election reoently ordered by 

### theCommlssloners~ Court,the vote wasupontwo $mtitlons which subdivided ths oounty into preolnota and that it would, therefore, bemandatory uponthe ComniLssloners' Court to now ~11 aneleotion for ocunty-wide atook law election upon

(1001

. . .the petitions of 300 G.ualified voter%* Article 6954, V. 1:. C. y., provides a8 follows:

“Uponthe aritten :)etitlon of one hundred freeholders of any cf the iolloiving counties:

. . . . ‘Yeller

. . . . or, uponthe petition

## or **iirty** (50) freeholders **0r** any auoh subdivision of e county as maybe desorlbed in the petition, and derlned by the Covml.asloners’ Court or my or tha above nemedoouniiea, the Commissionera’ Court of asld county shall order en election to be held in such county or auoh subdivision of a county ss may**be** deaorlbed in the petition and derined by the Cocmlsnlonera~ Court, on the day namedin the order, for the purpose of enebllng the freeholdera 

## or such county or subdivision 

## or a oauhty aa may be desorlbed 

### inthe petition and diefired by the Commissionera 

### Courtto determine 

### whetherhorses, r;uleo, Jacks, jennets, and oattle ohall be permitt6d to run at large in such ocunty or such subdivision of e county 68my be described ir the petition end defined by the Comisslonera’ Court.”

It is the opinion of this department, after oar&u1 study- ot thia question, that it is nowtho leg61 duty of tb Commissioners’ Court of :‘fellar County to oall a oouuty-wide aleotlon under Artlcla 6956, Vernon’s Annoteted Civil Ctatutag upon the written petition of one hundred (lOa), or sore 

## r eeholdera 

## 0r suoh oounty. zsq?zz If such eleotion results in the

a atook law, it would control war the prior elections held in the subdlvislona. The aaid elaotions held in the two subdivisions or Yeller County era not tantamount to a county-wide election bnd, aa 

### Artlola6964, 

### V, A. 

### C. 3.) plainly prwldea that a deraat of the propoeltlon in s subdltlolon shall 

### notprevent analeotlon from being held lnmediately thereaftar for the ertire oounty, wesee noneoeaaity et this tine to pass upon the validity of the eleotlons heretofore h6ld 11%

suoh subdivisions. Trusting the foregoing fully answers your questions, werenaln Very truly yours,

RLL :rt By: Zobt. L. Lattlaore, jr. ~isslstant.