OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

a0n. William F. Jackson 

COUllty AttOrIBy 

Yfaailer County 

Hempstead, Texas 

I)ear 3'~. Jaokeon: 

%'e have received 

reoent date end quote from ~I' 

subdivisions. On the 22d day of Maroh, 1544, the 

Commissioners' Court rescindad its original order f.o% 

oounty-wide stock law election and called sn election 

to be held in the two subdivisions uhioh, taken 

together, compose the entire area or 'kaller County. 

The election was held and stook law oerried in the 

greater Tortion of the county and railed to oarrp In 

what was designated as :?ubdivision Number Tvo. On 

July 10, another petition was gesented for county 
Eon. ‘Xllior? y. Jackson, ?age 2 

Ada stook law eleotion under Artiale 6954, which 

MS sipped by some three hundred freeholders of 

Yeller County, and no action was taken by the 

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, wa6 it ,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 

my opinion 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 a petition signed by 100 

free-holders of ?ialler County and that until 

suoh eleotlon is ordered and held, any election 

covering eubdivieiona or the oounty would be 

void. 

“The election which waa held resulted in 

the roilowing vote: Btook Law Preoinot Number 

One, which inoluded the greater portion oi 3aller 

County, voted in favor or the stook law. In whet 

wan deaigrmted as Stock Law Preolnot Number Two, 

whloh included the smaller QOX%iOn or the oounty, 

the vote was against a stock law.,, 

*Artdole 6964 provi&es that: 

*Whenever an eleotlon is held under 

the QrWisiOna 0r this chapter ror any 

oounty or subdivision, no other election 

ror auah purpose 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 ircxn being 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 or e1aotors 

now filed berora the Comissioners~ Court; but it is 

obvious that ii tha atatutas mm:8 so oonotrued, the 

purpos.06 or the atook laws would be nulliiled and shy 

oounty-rida stook law eleotlon oould ba defeated on 

the petition of any minority composed of ea msny a8 

rirty qud+ri0d electors. 

“1 advised the Coauaissionars~ Court that a 

oounty-wide etook law should be oallad on the iirst 

petition, and I am of tha opinion that the election 

vihioh was oalled for the two rubdlvlslons ia void 

and that the Connissioners* Court did not have authority to oall the aleotlon on the ssoond petition 

filed. It is my rurthar opinion that upon the petition of 100 or more quallflod eleotors it beoomaa 

xnandatory upon the 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 my opinion that even though the entire 

county did vote slzcultaneously in the election 

reoently ordered by the Commlssloners~ Court, the 

vote was upon two $mtitlons which subdivided ths 

oounty into preolnota and that it would, therefore, 

be mandatory upon the ComniLssloners' Court to now 

~11 an eleotion for ocunty-wide atook law election 

upon 

(1001 

. . . 

the petitions of 300 G.ualified voter%* 

Article 6954, V. 1:. C. y., provides a8 follows: 

“Upon the aritten :)etitlon of one hundred 

freeholders of any cf the iolloiving counties: 

. . . . ‘Yeller . . . . or, upon the petition 
or iirty (50) freeholders 0r any auoh subdivision 

of e county as may be desorlbed in the petition, 

and derlned by the Covml.asloners’ Court or my or 

tha above nemed oouniiea, 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 named in the 

order, for the purpose of enebllng the freeholdera 

or such county or subdivision or a oauhty aa may 

be desorlbed in the petition and diefired by the 

Commissionera Court to determine whether horses, 

r;uleo, Jacks, jennets, and oattle ohall be permitt6d to run at large in such ocunty or such subdivision of e county 68 my 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 now tho 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 Artlola 6964, V, A. C. 3.) 

plainly prwldea that a deraat of the propoeltlon in s subdltlolon shall not prevent an aleotlon from being held lnmediately thereaftar for the ertire oounty, we see no neoeaaity 

et this tine to pass upon the validity of the eleotlons heretofore h6ld 11% suoh subdivisions. 

Trusting the foregoing fully answers your questions, 

we renaln 

Very truly yours, 

RLL : rt 

By: 

Zobt. L. Lattlaore, jr. 

~isslstant.