Honorable David Ratliff, Chairman 

Senate Committee on Counties, Cities 

and Towns 

Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. C-402 

Re: Constitutionality of Senate 

Bill 209 

Dear Senator Ratliff: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the constitutionality 

of Senate Bill 209, and in connection with such request, have 

posed the following questions: 

" 1 . IS it constitutional to require the County 

Tax Assessor-Collector of Bexar County to assess taxes 

for the Bexar County Hospital District at a greater 

value than that assessed for County and State purposes?... 

‘8 2 . Can the bill set forth Bexar County by name, 

or must it be a population bracket bill to satisfy 

constitutional requirements?" 

By supplemental letter of March 9, 1965, you state: 

"With regard to the request made to you by this 

committee on February 10, 1965, the committee wishes 

to amend that request to include the following question: 

-1900- 
Honorable David Ratliff, page 2 (C-402) 

" 1 . If there is a serious question about the 

constitutionality of Senate Bill 209 as proposed and 

introduced, how could the bill be amended or redrafted 

so as to accomplish its purpose in a constitutional 

manner? 

"We would appreciate your preparing such a revision 

to conform to your recommendations if necessary. 

"Also the committee would like to delete from 

our original request the question asked in Item No. 2." 

After having two committee meetings on the constitutionality 

of Senate Bill 209, it is our opinion that there is a very 

serious question about the constitutionality of said Bill. As 

drawn, the Bill will only apply to Bexar County and appears to 

be a special law in violation of Section 56 of Article III of 

the Constitution of Texas. Further, the Bill provides for the 

County Tax Assessor-Collector to assess property in Bexar County 

at a greater valuation for hospital purpose than that assessed 

for state and county purposes. See Attorney General's Opinion 

O-5426 (1943) which holds inter alia, that: 

"The said oat&s by which he Lzhe County Assessor and 

Collector of Taxed is bound and which have been set out 

in this opinion, do not set up one standard of value to 

be followed by him in making his assessments for school 

districts and another and different standard of value 

to be set up by him in making assessments for county and 

state purposes." 

The Constitution and Statutes of thisstate require 

uniformity of assessment of real and personal property at full 

cash market value, but the courts have held that assessments at 

a lower percentaqe of market value are valid if equally and 

-1901- 
Honorable David Ratliff, page 3 (C-402) 

uniformly applied to all taxable property. Therefore, the 

taxing authority may require all property to be assessed at 

100% market value or any fraction thereof equally and uniformly 

applied. Lively v. Missouri Kansas Texas Railwav Company of 

Texas, 120 S.W. 852(Supreme Court 1909); Duvall v. Clark, 

158 S.W.(2d) 565 (Tex. Civ. App. 1909 error ref.); 

El Paso v. Howse, 248 S.W. 99 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923, error ref.); 

Texas Constitution, Article VIII, Sections 1, 11 and 20; 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, Articles 7149, 7174, 7211, 7218, 

7219, 7222 and 7224. 

Pursuant to your request, we have prepared a suggested 

revision of Senate Bill 209, which, in our opinion, is 

constitutional. 

Very truly yours, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General 

WVG:me 

W. V. Geppert 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Roger Tyler, Chairman 

Mary K. Wall 

W. E. Allen 

Marietta McGregor Payne 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Stanton Stone 

-1902-