Honorable Carlos Valdez Opinion No. JX-833 

Nueces County Attorney . 

901 Leopard, Room 206 Re: Collection of county 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 taxes (RQ-962) 

Dear Mr. Valdez: 

You advise that a tax assessor collector has been 

elected in Nueces County pursuant to article VIII, section 

14, of the Texas Constitution, and ask 

of two legislative enactments that would 

about the validity 

the collection of county taxes by persons 

seemingly permit 

other than that 

officer. 

Article VIII, section 14, of the constitution reads: 

Except as provided in Section 16 of this 

Article, there shall be elected by the 

qualified voters of each county, an Assessor 

and Collector of Taxes, who shall hold 

his office for four years and until his 

successor is elected and qualified; and such 

Assessor and Collector of Taxes shall nerform all the duties with reswect to 

assessins wrowertv for the wurwose of taxation and of collectins taxes, as may be 

prescribed bv the Lecrislature. (Emphasis 

added.) 

When the constitution was originally adopted in 1876, 

the Assessor of Taxes and the Collector of Taxes were 

separate officers. Article VIII, section 14, which 

originally concerned only the tax assessor, then specified 

no particular duties for that officer to perform, leaving 

the matter to the legislature. The original provision 

read: 

There shall be elected by the qualified 

electors of each county at the same time and 

under the same law regulating the election 

of State and county officers, an Assessor of 

P. 3991 

. 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 2 (JM-833) 

Taxes, who shall hold his office for two 

years and until his successor is elected and 

qualified. 

Tex . Const. art. VIII, 514 (1876). 

The collection of taxes was treated in section 16, of 

article VIII. It originally read: 

The Sheriff of each county, in addition to 

his other duties, shall be the collector of 

taxes therefor. But in counties having ten 

thousand inhabitants, to be determined by 

the last preceding census of the United 

States, a Collector of taxes shall be 

elected to hold office for two years and 

until his successor shall be elected and 

qualified. 

Tex. Const. art. VIII, 516 (1876). 

While these original provisions of the constitution 

were still in place, the Texas Supreme Court decided 

Missouri. K & T Railwav Co. of Texas v. Shannon, 100 S.W. 

138 (Tex. 1907). The court wrote: 

It is argued that section 14, properly 

construed, means, not only that there shall 

be an assessor of taxes elected for each 

county, but that he and no other officer 

shall be intrusted with any part of the duty 

of making the assessment. We think the 

claim is too broad. The section contains no 

language which expressly prohibits the 

appointment of a board to assess taxes in a 

particular case. Unlike other wrovisions of 

the Constitution which create offices. it 

does not define the duties of the officer, 

from which we think it is to be inferred 

that the scowe of his duties were left to 

the determination of the Leaislature. While 

we think that the Legislature could not 

strip the assessor of all authority, and 

probably that it was intended by the framers 

of the Constitution that all ordinary 

assessments of property for taxation should 

be made by him, still we think it was not 

intended to deprive the Legislature of the 

power of devolving the duty upon another 

p. 3992 

. 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 3 (JM-833) 

officer, 

special 

or board to assess property in some 

case, where, as in the present 

instance, the county assessors were clearly 

unable from the means 

ascertain with any 

at their disposal to 

approximation the 

reasonable degree of 

value of the intangible 

assets of the railroad company, and still 

less capable of making intelligently the 

apportionment due to their 

counties. 

respective 

(Emphasis added.) 

Later, after the Supreme Court in Shannon had 

construed section 14 of article VIII to permit definition 

by the legislature of the scope of the tax assessor's 

duties and to permit its placement of some assessment 

duties elsewhere, both sections 14 and 16 of article VIII 

were amended. In 1932, section 14 was amended 

the title of the officer to "Tax Assessor 

to change 

and Collector" 

and to add the following language: 

[A]nd such Assessor and Collector of Taxes 

shall perform all the duties with respect to 

assessing property for the purpose of taxation and of collecting taxes, as may be prescribed by the Legislature. 

See H.J.R. 21, Acts 1931, 42d Leg., at 942. At the same 

time, section 16 was amended to make the sheriff the 

"Assessor and Collector of Taxes!' for the county, but to 

require the election of a separate Tax Assessor and 

Collector "as provided in Section 14" in counties 'of 

10,000 inhabitants or more. Id. at 943.1 

It is possible to read the added 

14 in different ways. 

language of section 

intends the words 

It can be argued that the provision 

"all duties" to be read as "such 

duties," so that the officer is to perform only such 

duties as the legislature prescribes, much as article IV, 

section 23, of the constitution specifies that the 

comptroller of public accounts, the treasurer, and 

the commissioner of the general land office are to 

1. In 1954, section 16a was added to article VIII, 

allowing the election of a separate assessor-collector of 

taxes in counties having less than 10,000 inhabitants. 

See H.J.R. 8, Acts 1953, 53d Leg., at 1175. 

p. 3993 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 4 (JIG833) 

"perform such duties as are or may be required by law." 

Alternatively, the language may be read to mean "all 

duties with respect to assessing property for purposes of 

taxation and of collecting taxes8' that the lesislature 

prescribes are to be performed by that officer. It was 

read in this way by Attorney General Letter Advisory No. 

117 (1976), based on Green v. Stewart, 516 S.W.Zd 133 

(Tex. 1974). See also Attorney General Opinion M-70 

(1967). 

In Green v. Stewart, m, the Texas Supreme Court 

considered a Court of Civil Appeals decision holding that 

deputy tax assessors-collectors performed governmental 

functions in their own right, making them **officers*' 

excluded from civil service coverage. The supreme court 

began its review of the case by juxtaposing the 

constitutional language and the statute: 

Article VIII, Section 14 of the Texas 

Constitution, Vernon's Ann. St., authorizes 

the election of an assessor-collector of 

taxes in each county who shall hold his 

office for four years and until his successor is elected and qualified. It then 

states that 'such Assessor and Collector of 

Taxes shall perform all the duties with 

respect to assessing property for the 

purpose of taxation and collecting taxes, as 

may be prescribed by the Legislature.' 

Article 7252 authorizes the assessorcollector of taxes to appoint deputies 'to 

assist himI and among other things provides, 

'and the deputies appointed in accordance 

with the provisions of this Article shall do 

and perform all the duties imposed and 

required by law of Assessors and Collectors 

of Taxes: and all acts of such deputies done 

in conformity with law shall be as binding 

and valid as if done by the Assessor and 

Collector of Taxes in person.' (Emphasis by 

the court.) 

Id. at 134-35. The supreme court then said: 

Any possible conflict between the statute 

and the Constitution which might arise by 

reason of their different delegations of the 

same totality of powers to the assessorcollector and also to each one of his 

p. 3994 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 5 (JP-833) 

appointees is avoided by the additional words 

of Article 7252 which state that the 

assessor-collector may appoint deputies 'to 

assist him.' The Constitution and statute 

are thus harmonized since it is the assessorcollector who is charsed with all the 

duties. and it is the dewuties who 'assist 

him' in the werformance of those duties. 

(Emphasis added.) 

Id. at 135. 

The supreme court in Green v. Stewart apparently 

construed article VIII, section 14, to mean that the 

legislature could decide what needed to be done (what 

duties should be performed) with respect to assessing 

and collecting taxes, but that it could not usurp the 

constitutional authority of the Tax Assessor-Collector to 

discharge those duties himself. In other words, the 

legislature might designate others to assist him, but it 

could not supplant him. 

The question in Attorney General Letter Advisory No. 

117 (1976), was whether the legislature could, consistent 

with section 14 of article VIII, vest the appraisal 

function of the county tax assessor-collector in an office 

or unit independent of that officer. After concluding 

that the appraisal function was part of the assessment 

duty, this office concluded, relying on Green v. Stewart, 

that "the duties of the assessor-collector with regard to 

the assessment of property for county taxation" could not 

be transferred to another individual without amendment of 

the constitution. 

Thereafter, in 1980, a constitutional amendment 

dealing with appraisals was adopted in response to 

Attorney General Letter Advisory No. 117. Wilson v. 

Galveston Countv Central Awwraisal District, 713~ S.W.2d 98 

(Tex. 1986). Section 18 of article VIII, was changed to 

read [with subsections (b), (c), and (d) representing new 

language]: 

(a) The Legislature shall provide for 

equalizing, as near as may be, the valuation 

of all property subject to or rendered for 

taxation, and may also provide for the 

classification of all lands with reference 

to their value in the several counties. 

p. 3995 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 6 W-833) 

(b) A single appraisal within each 

county of all property subject to ad valorem 

taxation by the county and all other taxing 

units located therein shall be provided by 

general law. The Legislature, by general 

law, may authorize appraisals outside a 

county when political subdivisions are 

situated in more than one county or when two 

or more counties elect to consolidate 

appraisal services. 

(c) The Legislature, by general law, 

shall provide for a single board of 

equalization for each appraisal 

consisting of 

entity 

qualified persons residing 

within the territory appraised by that 

entity. Members of the board of egualization may not be elected officials of the 

county or of the governing body of a 

unit. 

taxing 

(d) The Legislature shall prescribe by 

general law the methods, timing, and 

administrative process for implementing the 

requirements of this section. 

In Wilson v. Galveston Countv Central Awwraisal 

District, suwra, the Texas Supreme Court held that this 

amendment separated the appraisal function from the 

"express assessing function" of the county tax assessorcollector and authorized the legislature to place the 

appraisal function elsewhere. We conclude that the 

Constitution of Texas, article VIII, section 14, continues 

to mean that all duties with respect to assessing property 

for purposes of county taxation and of collecting county 

taxes that the legislature prescribes -- except the 

appraisal function (now permitted by the constitution to 

be placed elsewhere) -- are to be performed by the tax 

assessor-collector of the county. 

We turn now to the statutes about which you have 

asked. The two statutory provisions 

sections 6.24 

in question are 

and 6.26 of the Tax Code. Section 6.24 

states: 

(a) The governing body of a taxing unit 

other than a county may contract as provided 

by the Interlocal Cooperation Act with the 

governing body of another unit or with the 

p. 3996 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 7 (m-833) 

board of directors of an appraisal district 

for the other unit or the district to perform duties relating to the assessment or 

collection of taxes. 

(b) The commissioners court with the 

awwroval of the countv assessor-collector 

may contract as provided by the Interlocal 

Cooperation Act with the governing body of 

another taxing unit in the county or with 

the board of directors of the appraisal 

district for the other unit or the district 

to perform duties relating to the assessment 

or collection of taxes for the county. If a 

county contracts to have its taxes assessed 

and collected by another taxing unit or by 

the appraisal district, the contract shall 

require the other unit or the district to 

assess and collect all taxes the county is 

required to assess and collect. 

(c) repealed (by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., 

ch. 851, at 4829). 

(d) A'contract under this section may 

provide for the entity that collects taxes 

to contract with an attorney, as provided by 

Section 6.30 of this code, for collection of 

delinquent taxes. (Emphasis added.) 

A statute is to be given, if possible, a meaning that 

is agreeable to the constitution. See 12 Tex. Jur. 3d 

Constitutional Law 537, at 537. We think such a construction can reasonably be given section 6.24. Subsection (a) 

of the statute exempts counties from those entities 

authorized to contract (by "Interlocal Cooperation Act" 

contract) to have another governmental body perform duties 

relating to the assessment or collection of its taxes 

except as provided in subsection (b). The latter subsection permits such a contract only "with the awwroval of 

the countv assessor-collector." 

We construe this language as authorizing a contract 

to obtain assistance for the assessor-collector, not to 

supplant him. Cf. Pritchard & Abbot v. McKenna, 350 

S.W.2d 333 (Tex. 1961): Attornev General Owinion M-986 

(1971). This reading. his reasonable in light of the 

preceding section, section 6.23, which states, "m 

p. 3997 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 8 (J’S833) 

countv assessor-collector shall assess and collect taxes 

on WrOWertv in the countv for the state and the county." 

Although the "with the approval" phrase in section 6.24 

could be given a different, broader meaning, a statute 

should be construed in a restricted manner when necessary 

to preserve its constitutionality, if it is reasonable to 

do so. Citv of Waco v. Landinsham, 157 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. 

1941). 

We cannot assign to the legislative act an intent to 

authorize the assessor-collector, by his "approval," to 

divest himself of power, authority, and 

invested in him by the constitution -- 

responsibility 

something the 

legislature itself could not do. It must be assumed the 

legislature intended to enact a valid law. Industrial 

Accident Board v. O'Dowd, 303 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. 1957). cf. 

Uwshur Countv Commissioners Court v. Central Education 

Asency 697 S.W.Zd 443 (Tex. App. - Austin 1985, no writ). 

As co&trued, section 6.24 of the Tax Code is valid, in 

our opinion. 

The other statute, 

different matter. 

section 6.26 of the Tax Code, is a 

As amended in 1983, it reads: 

(a) The qualified voters residing in an 

appraisal district by petition submitted to 

the county clerk of the county principally 

served by the appraisal district may require 

that an election be held to determine 

whether or not to reouire the awwraisal 

district. the countv assessor-collector, or 

a swecified taxinc unit within the awwraisal 

district to assess. collect, or assess and 

Collect WrOWertV taxes on wrowertv awwraised 

bv the district for all taxina units. 

(b) The qualified voters of a taxing 

unit that assesses, collects, or assesses 

and collects its own property taxes by 

petition submitted to the governing body of 

the taxing unit may require that an election 

be held to determine whether or not to 

require the awwraisal district, the countv 

assessor-collector, or another taxina unit 

that is assessins and collectins wrowerty 

taxes to assess. collect, or assess and 

collect the unit's wrowertv taxes. 

(c) A petition is valid if: 

p. 3998 
I 

- 

P 

Honorable Carlos Valdez - Rage 9 (m-833) 

(1) it states that it is intended 

to require an election in the appraisal 

district or taxing unit on the question 

of consolidation of assessing or 

collecting functions or both; 

(2) it states the functions to be 

consolidated and identifies the entit. 

office that will be recuired to perform 

the functions. . . . 

. . . . 

(e) If the commissioners court or the 

governing body finds that the petition is 

valid, it shall order that an election be 

held in the district or taxing unit on the 

next uniform election date prescribed by the 

Texas Election Code that is more than 60 

days after the last day on which it could 

have acted to approve or disapprove the 

petition. At the election, the ballots 

shall be prepared to permit voting for or 

against the proposition: 'Requiring the 

(name of entity or office) to (assess, 

collect, or assess and collect, 

applicable) property taxes 

units in 

for (all taxi:: 

the appraisal district for 

county or, name of 

unit or units, 

taxing 

as applicable).' (Emphasis 

added.) 

Although it is the duty of the courts -- and this 

office -- to strive to adopt a 

the constitutionality 

construction that supports 

of the statute, Uwshur County 

Commissioners Court, 697 S.W.2d at 447, it is not proper 

to ascribe to a statute a meaning at variance with its 

plain import so as to conform it to constitutionality 

or wisdom. Citv of Austin v. Cahill, 88 S.W. 542 (Tex. 

1905). 

The plain import of section 6.26 of the Tax Code is 

to permit the electorate, if it chooses, to place the 

assessment and collection duties of the county tax 

assessor-collector elsewhere, contrary to the intent of 

article VIII, section 14, of the Texas Constitution. 

Section 6.26 could be saved by reading it to encompass 

only the awwraisal function of the tax assessor-collector, 

because the amendment of section 18, article VIII, had 

p. 3999 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 10 W-833) 

separated the appraisal function from the assessment and 

collection functions of the county assessor-collector 

before section 6.26 was amended to embrace counties.2 

Wilson v. Galveston Countv Central Awwraisal District, 

suwra. But such a reading would restrict the functions 

other taxing units are allowed by the statute to place in 

the hands of an appraisal district, and would not be a 

reasonable conclusion to draw from the words of the 

statute; we cannot give it that construction. See County 

School Trustees of Orance Countv v. District Trustees of 

Prairie View Common School District No. 8, 153 S.W.2d 434 

(Tex. 1941). 

We conclude that section 6.26 of the Tax Code is 

unconstitutional as applied to the assessment and 

collection duties of county tax assessors-collectors -- 

except as the appraisal function of the office has been 

separated from those duties by the amendment of article 

VIII, section 18, of the constitution. But the entire 

statute need not fail if its provisions are not so 

connected in subject matter, so dependent on each other, 

or otherwise so connected together in meaning that it can 

be presumed that the legislature would have passed the law 

without the provision found unconstitutional. Countv 

School Trustees of Oranae Countv v. District Trustees of 

Prairie View Common School District No. 8, suwra. 

In this case, the legislature, in 1979, did enact 

section 6.26 without unconstitutionally including the 

section 14 assessment and collection duties 

assessors-collectors within its scope,3 and 

of county tax 

nothing about 

-, 

2. Section 6.26 was originally enacted as part of 

Title 1 of the Tax Code in 1979, to take effect January 1, 

1982. See Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 841, at 2217. It was 

amended in 1981, see Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 13, at 125, 

effective January 1, 1982, and again amended in 1983, see 

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 785, at 4612. The amendment to 

article VIII, section 18, of the constitution was adopted 

in 1980 pursuant to a legislative proposal made in 1979. 

See H.J.R. No. 98, Acts 1979, 66th Leg., at 3229. 

Orisinallv. section 6.26 awwlied onlv to taxins units 

"other than a county." The exception was removed by the 

1981 amendment to the statute. 

3. See note 2. 

p. 4000 
Honorable Carlos Valdez - Page 11 (JM-833) 

the subsequent amendments to the section suggests that 

changes affecting other taxing units would not have been 

approved if counties had remained 

ambit of the statute. 

entirely outside the 

We do not believe section 6.26 is 

rendered invalid in its entirety by its unconstitutional 

attempt to embrace the assessment and collection duties of 

the county tax article 

section 14, 

assessor contemplated by VIII, 

of the constitution. 

Your questions concerned the validity of placing 

elsewhere the assessment and collection duties of county 

assessors-collectors regarding county taxes. In view of 

our resolution of the matter based on article VIII, 

section 14 of the constitution, we do not address other 

constitutional arguments. cf. Tex . Const. arts. I, 528: 

II, 91. 

SUMMARY 

The legislature may not authorize the 

electorate to divest the county tax assessorcollector of duties respecting the assessment 

and collection of county taxes, other than 

appraisal functions. Tex. Const. art VIII, 

5514, 18. Section 6.24 of the Tax Code, as 

construed, is valid, but section 6.26 is 

unconstitutional insofar as it contravenes 

article VIII, section 14, of the constitution. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Bruce Youngblood 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 4001