### THEATI-ORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS

March 

### 16,1961

Mr. R. L. Templeton County Attorney CollingsworthCounty Wellington, Texas

Dear Mr. Templeton: Opinion No. Wd-1009

Re: Legality of an election levying a 

### 30cent 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 restrictedas to certainyears, and related questions.

Thank you for your recent letter concerningan election held In CollingsworthCounty on April 2, 1957, as provided for in Section

### 7 of Article 7048a of Vernon's Civil Statutes. You advise that the CommissionersCourt called the election
so that the qualifiedvoters could pass on the proposition'
as follows:

"PROPOSITION

"To determinewhether or not said County shall be authorized to levy, assess, and collect ad valorem taxes upon all taxable propertywithin said County for the years of 1957, 

### 1958, 1959 and 1960, except the first $3,000.00valuation of residentialhomesteads, not to exceed 30 cents on each $100.00valuation in addition to all other ad valorem taxes authorizedby the Constitution of the State of Texas, provided the
revenue therefrom shallbe used for the construction and maintenance of farm-to-marketand 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 electionwas as follows:

"FORTHE TAX OF NO? EXCEEDING 30 CENTS ON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS (100.00)VALUATION"Mr. R. L. Templeton, Page 2 (WW-1009)

"AGAINSTTHE 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 

### 655votes to 

### 338votes. you asked the following liberty of rephrasing: that the tax carriedby In connectionwith the questions,which we have

ad valorem tax in May the duration of the questionbe limited to a specificnumber 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 questionbe 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 CommissionersCourt of the county be submitted to a vote of the qualifiedproperty taxpayingvoters of such county at an election called for that purpose, either on said Commissioners Court's ownmotion, or upon petition of ten per cent (10%)of the qualifiedproperty taxpayingvoters of said county as shownby the returns of the last general election. Said election shallbe ordered at a regular session of said CommissionersCourt 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 taxableproperty within such county, shall state the date when said election shallbe held, and shall appoint officers to hold said election in accordancewith the election laws of this State. Provided,however, that the proposition submitted to the qualifiedproperty taxpayingvoters at said electionmay provide that the tax at a rate not to exceed thirty cents (30#)
on each One Hundred Dollars ($100)valuationmay be.

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

used for the constructionandmaintenance of Farm-to-Marketand Lateral Roads or for Flood Controlpurposes, either, or both, as 'theCommissioners Courtmay determine (In which event Ehe ballots shallhave written or printed thereon, 'For the tax of not exceeding

_ cents on each vne Hunared Dollars (FlOuJvaluation,' and the contrary thereof, specifying the tax to be 'votedupon), or the propositionmay Drovlde for a sneclficmaximum tax for Farm-to- ‘Market and Lateral Roads purposes and a specific maximum tax for Flood Controlpurposes, the total of the two (2)specificmaximum taxes not to exteed thlrt lars ($100

7 cents 

### (304)

on the One Hundred Dolvaluation (Inwhich event theballots shallhave written or printed thereon, 'Fora Farm-to-Marketand 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, specifyingthe specific taxes to be voted upon). Provided, further, that electionsmay subsequently be called and held In the samemanner 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 themaximum specific tax voted for each purpose; provided,however, that such tax or taxes may not be reduced to an extentwhich would result In the Impairment of any bonds or warrants theretofore issued under the provisions of Section 10 of this Act." (Emphasisadded)

In connectionwith questionnumber 1, by limiting the duration of the ad valorem tax in question the Commissioners Court of CollingsworthCounty used the power granted to it by Section

### 7 of Article 7048a In a limitedway. We find nothing in the statute in question or In the Texas Constitution which makes this self-imposedrestriction 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~tothe 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 providedMr. 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'sgeneral credit by the CommissionersCourt for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the farm-to-marketand lateral roads in question, San Antonio River Authorityv. Shepperd, 

### 157Tex. 

### 73, 299 S.W.2d920 (1957).
The underlinedportion of Section

### 7 has a direct bearing on this situation. Here the propositiondid 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 constructionand maintenance of farm-to-marketroads, and therefore the provision contained in the first parentheses in Section 

### 7 was applicable. Suchwording did appear on t;he ballots used In the election. In view of the language

. . . In which event the ballots shallhave written therei: II q&&n a strong argument couldbe made that the language

ismandatory 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 exactwordina of the propositionpassed upon by the CommissionersCourt. In the opinion in 12 S.W. 165 nolds Land & Cattle Co. v. McCabe, 72 Tex. 

### 57,

WtS), it is said:

,I

. . . When a statutewhich authorizesa special election for the imposition of a tax prescribes the form In which the question shallbe submitted to the popular vote, we are of opinion that the statute shouldbe strictly compliedwith; but if the form Is not prescribed, thenwe are of opinion that the language of the proposition submitted is not material, provided it substantiallysubmits the questionwhich the law authorizeswith such definitenessand certainty that the voters are not misled.

. . ."

In England v. McCoy, 269 S.W.2d 813 ,(Clv. App. 1954, error dlsm.), a ballot submittingthe question posed charter?" Do you favor the prowas held to be sufficientto fairly Inform the voters of the question submitted. In the En land case, su ra the Court placed emphasis on the fact that +--- .-ATlii e contents 0. .

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

proposed charterhad been publicized In the notice of the election. In the instant case, it seems obvious that no voter who previously read the CommissionersCourt's order
or the notice of the election,w hich was posted and published in compliancewith 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 invalidatethe election.

In Section 

### 7 it Is stated that before any county shall levy, assess and collect this ad valorem tax, the question shallbe submitted to the qualifiedproperty taxpayingvoters of such county at an election called for that purpose, either
on the CommissionersCourt's ownmotion, or upon petition of ten per cent (10%)of the qualifiedproperty taxpayingvoters of such county. In the Instant case, the Commissioners Court's order calling the electionwas the authority upon which the electionwas based. Therefore, since such order concernedan ad valorem tax limited tofour years duration, the .electoratecould vote only upon such limited tax. The fact that the ballots did not reflect such limitationdid 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 CommissionersCourt 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 invalidatethe election. Such tax should not be collected for 

### 1961without another electionas 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-

AssistantMr. 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