THEATI-ORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

March 16, 1961 

Mr. R. L. Templeton 

County Attorney 

Collingsworth County 

Wellington, Texas 

Dear Mr. Templeton: 

Opinion No. Wd-1009 

Re: Legality of an election levying a 30 cent ad valorem tax, 

when the notice provided for 

the tax to be levied for the 

years, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 

1960, while the proposition 

voted on was not restricted as 

to certain years, and related 

questions. 

Thank you for your recent letter concerning an election 

held In Collingsworth County on April 2, 1957, as provided 

for in Section 7 of Article 7048a of Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

You advise that the Commissioners Court called the election 

so that the qualified voters could pass on the proposition' 

as follows: 

"PROPOSITION 

"To determine whether or not said County shall 

be authorized to levy, assess, and collect ad 

valorem taxes upon all taxable property within said County for the years of 1957, 1958, 

1959 and 1960, except the first $3,000.00 valuation of residential homesteads, not to exceed 30 

cents on each $100.00 valuation in addition to 

all other ad valorem taxes authorized by the Constitution of the State of Texas, provided the 

revenue therefrom shall be used for the construction and maintenance of farm-to-market and lateral 

roads as provided in House Bill No. 107, Acts 51st 

Legislature, Regular Session, 1949." 

Your letter reflects that the wording appearing on the 

ballots which were used in the election was as follows: 

"FOR THE TAX OF NO? EXCEEDING 30 CENTS ON EACH 

ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS (100.00) VALUATION" 
Mr. R. L. Templeton, Page 2 (WW-1009) 

"AGAINST THE TAX OF NOT EXCEEDING 30 CENTS ON 

EACH 

Your 

a vote of 

election, 

taken the 

1. 

2. 

3. 

ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($lOO.OO] VALUATION" 

letter further reflects 

655 votes to 338 votes. 

you asked the following 

liberty of rephrasing: 

that the tax carried by 

In connection with the 

questions, which we have 

May the duration of the ad valorem tax in 

question be limited to a specific number 

of years? 

Did the fact that the ballots failed to 

show that the tax was only for the years 

1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960, invalidate the 

election? 

Can the tax in question be collected for 

196.1 without another election? 

Section 7 of Article 7048a of Vernon's Civil Statutes 

reads as follows: 

"Before any county shall levy, assess and 

collect the tax provided for herein the question 

shall by the Commissioners Court of the county 

be submitted to a vote of the qualified property 

taxpaying voters of such county at an election 

called for that purpose, either on said Commissioners Court's own motion, or upon petition of 

ten per cent (10%) of the qualified property 

taxpaying voters of said county as shown by the 

returns of the last general election. Said 

election shall be ordered at a regular session 

of said Commissioners Court and such order shallows 

specify the rate of tax to be voted on, not to 

exceed thirty cents (304) on each One Hundred 

Dollars ($100) valuation of taxable property within such county, shall state the date when said 

election shall be held, and shall appoint officers 

to hold said election in accordance with the election laws of this State. Provided, however, that 

the proposition submitted to the qualified property 

taxpaying voters at said election may provide that 

the tax at a rate not to exceed thirty cents (30#) 

on each One Hundred Dollars ($100) valuation may be 
. 

Mr. R. L. Templeton, Page 3 (~-loog)~ 

used for the construction and maintenance of 

Farm-to-Market and Lateral Roads or for Flood 

Control purposes, either, or both, as 'the Commissioners Court may determine (In which event 

Ehe ballots shall have written or printed 

thereon, 'For the tax of not exceeding _ 

cents on each vne Hunared Dollars (FlOuJ valuation,' and the contrary thereof, specifying the 

tax to be 'voted upon), or the proposition may 

Drovlde for a sneclfic maximum tax for Farm-to- 

‘Market and Lateral Roads purposes and a specific 

maximum tax for Flood Control purposes, the total 

of the two (2) specific maximum taxes not to exteed thlrt 

lars ($100 7 

cents (304) on the One Hundred Dolvaluation (In which event the ballots 

shall have written or printed thereon, 'For a 

Farm-to-Market and Lateral Roads tax of not exceeding cents and a Flood Control tax of 

not exceeding cents, on the One Hundred 

Dollars- ($lOO)valuation,' and the contrary thereof, specifying the specific taxes to be voted upon). 

Provided, further, that elections may subsequently 

be called and held In the same manner for the purpose of changing the amount of the maximum tax within the limit of thirty cents (30d) on the One Hundred 'Dollars ($100) valuation, or for changing the 

amounts of the maximum specific tax voted for each 

purpose; provided, however, that such tax or taxes 

may not be reduced to an extent which would result 

In the Impairment of any bonds or warrants theretofore issued under the provisions of Section 10 of 

this Act." (Emphasis added) 

In connection with question number 1, by limiting the 

duration of the ad valorem tax in question the Commissioners 

Court of Collingsworth County used the power granted to it 

by Section 7 of Article 7048a In a limited way. We find 

nothing in the statute in question or In the Texas Constitution 

which makes this self-imposed restriction illegal. The effect 

of the four year limitation is the same as If the electorate 

had voted at the end of four years to repeal the tax. Section 

7 reserves ~to the electorate the right to reduce or repeal the 

tax in question, If such reduction or repeal does not impair 

any obligationin the form of bonds or warrants, as provided 
Mr. R. L. Templeton, Page 4 (WW-1009) 

for in Section 10, Article 7048a, or in the form of claims 

arising out of the extension of the County's general credit 

by the Commissioners Court for the purpose of constructing 

and maintaining the farm-to-market and lateral roads in 

question, San Antonio River Authority v. Shepperd, 157 Tex. 

73, 299 S.W.2d 920 (1957). 

The underlined portion of Section 7 has a direct bearing on this situation. Here the proposition did provide 

that the tax at a rate not to exceed thirty cents (304) on 

each One Hundred Dollars ($100) was to be used for the construction and maintenance of farm-to-market roads, and 

therefore the provision contained in the first parentheses 

in Section 7 was applicable. Such wording did appear on 

t;he ballots used In the election. In view of the language 

. . . In which event the ballots shall have written therei: 

II 

q&&n 

a strong argument could be made that the language 

is mandatory and that the ballots had to read as 

thev In fact did read In order for the election to be valid. 

Jones v. Threet, 117 S.W.2d 560 (WV. App. 1938). Even assuming that it was not essential to the validity of the election 

that the ballots contain the wording set out-in the statute, 

it Is clear that it is not essential to the validity of an 

election that the ballots contain the exact wordina of the 

proposition passed upon by the Commissioners Court. In the 

opinion in 

12 S.W. 165 

nolds Land & Cattle Co. v. McCabe, 72 Tex. 57, 

WtS), it is said: 

,I 

. . . When a statute which authorizes a special 

election for the imposition of a tax prescribes 

the form In which the question shall be submitted 

to the popular vote, we are of opinion that the 

statute should be strictly complied with; but if 

the form Is not prescribed, then we are of opinion 

that the language of the proposition submitted is 

not material, provided it substantially submits 

the question which the law authorizes with such 

definiteness and certainty that the voters are not 

misled. . . ." 

In England v. McCoy, 269 S.W.2d 813 ,(Clv. App. 1954, error 

dlsm.), a ballot submitting the question 

posed charter?" 

Do you favor the prowas held to be sufficient to fairly Inform the 

voters of the question submitted. In the En land case, su ra 

the Court placed emphasis on the fact that +--- econtents .-ATlii 0 
. . 

Mr. R. L. Templeton, Page 5 (WW-1009) 

proposed charter had been publicized In the notice of the 

election. In the instant case, it seems obvious that no 

voter who previously read the Commissioners Court's order 

or the notice of the election, w hich was posted and published in compliance with Section 8 of Article 7048a of 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, could have been misled by the 

wording of the ballot. In our opinion, the wording used 

onthe ballots in question did not invalidate the election. 

In Section 7 it Is stated that before any county shall 

levy, assess and collect this ad valorem tax, the question 

shall be submitted to the qualified property taxpaying voters 

of such county at an election called for that purpose, either 

on the Commissioners Court's own motion, or upon petition of 

ten per cent (10%) of the qualified property taxpaying voters 

of such county. In the Instant case, the Commissioners 

Court's order calling the election was the authority upon 

which the election was based. Therefore, since such order 

concerned an ad valorem tax limited to four years duration, 

the .electorate could vote only upon such limited tax. The 

fact that the ballots did not reflect such limitation did 

not have the effect of eliminating the limitation. Your 

first question is answered in the affirmative and questions 

2 and 3 are answered in the negative. 

SUMMARY 

It was legal for the Commissioners Court of 

Colllngsworth County to limit the duration of 

the tax in question to the years of 1957-1960, 

inclusive, and the fact that the ballots used 

in the election failed to show the limited 

duration of the tax did not invalidate the 

election. Such tax should not be collected for 

1961 without another election as provided for 

in Section 7 of Article 7048a of Vernon's Civil 

Statutes. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

JBM:mm ,,wz- Assistant 
Mr. R. L. Templeton, Page 6 (WW-1009) 

APPROVED:- 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

w. Ray scruggs 

J. Arthur Sandlin 

Iola B. Wilcox 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Morgan Nesbitt