DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEYGENERAL 

QBffice of tiy LWmwp QBeneral 

&ate of UJexae 

Honorable George J. Filley, III 

Criminal District Attorney 

P. 0. Box 488 

Victoria, Texas 77902 

June 29,1992 

Opinion No. DM-134 

Re: Whether Victoria County may 

fund the office of election administrator by contracting with political 

subdivisions that will utilize that 

officer’s services, pursuant to the 

Interlocal Cooperation Act (RQ-299) 

Dear Mr. Filley: 

You state that the County of Victoria, Texas wishes to create the position of 

county elections administrator pursuant to the Election Code section 31.031. A 

discussion has ensued as to the funding of the administrator and the office. Rather 

than have the county provide the funding on the front end and charge those legal 

entities requiring elections on an ad hoc basis, the county desires that all of the legal 

entities be obligated from the beginning for their proportionate share of the 

funding. 

You ask whether Victoria County, Texas may enter into an agreement to 

fund the office of Victoria County Elections Administrator on a continuing basis, 

with political subdivisions utilizing the elections administrator’s services pursuant 

to the Interlocal Cooperation Act. 

The Interlocal Cooperation Act, Government Code chapter 791, generally 

authorizes counties and other local governmental entities to contract among 

themselves for the performance of “a ggvernmental function or service that each 

P- 691 
Honorable George J. Filley, III - Page 2 (DM-134) 

party to the contract is authorized to perform individually.” Gov’t Code 

9 791.011(c)(2). The creation and funding of the office of elections administrator 

and the contracting by that officer to provide election services for other local 

governmental entities are, however, specifically provided for in chapter 31 of the 

Election Code, subchapters B and D respectively. 

Where discrete statutes, such as those in the Election Code referred to 

above, make detailed provisions for a county’s entering into specified kinds of 

contracts with other Iocal governmental entities, we do not believe that the general 

contracting authority provided for in the Interlocal Cooperation Act relieves the 

county from conforming to the statutes making detailed provisions with respect 

thereto. It is our opinion, therefore, that contracts with other local governmental 

entities for election services to be provided by the elections administrator and the 

use of monies received therefrom must conform to the above-referenced parts of 

the Election Code, which specifically provide for such matters. 

With respect to the use of monies received from election services contracts to 

fund the election administrator’s office, we note, for example, that Election Code 

section 31.100 requires inter uliu that such amounts be deposited in a separate 

elections services contract fund, that only actual expenses attributable to such 

contracts may be paid from such fund, that surplus funds in the account must be 

expended in conformity with regulations adopted by the secretary of state, and that 

“the commissioners court may not conskier the availability of the election services 

contract fund in adopting the county budget for the” adminktrator’s office. Elec. Code 

831.100(g) (emphasis added). Also, notably, sections 31.092 and 31.100 indicate 

that it would be the elections administrator, and not the commissioners court, who, 

would enter into election services contracts, and who, subject to the abovementioned restrictions, would determine the uses to which the funds derived 

therefrom would be applied. On the other hand, the Election Code does appear to 

permit contracting for the performance of election services for more than one 

election. See id $9 31.092(a) (election officer may contract with governing body of 

political subdivision to perform election services “in any one or more elections”), 

31.092(b) (election officer may contract with the county executive committee for 

“the party’s general primary election or runoff primary election, or both”). To that 

extent, contracts obligating the contracting entities for some period of time, rather 

than on an “ad hoc” basis, would be permitted under the Election Code provisions. 

p. 692 
Honorable George J. Filley, III - Page 3 (DM- 13 4 ) 

SUMMA&X 

Notwithstanding the general contracting authority afforded 

counties by the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the making of 

election services contracts and the use of proceeds therefrom to 

fund the office of county elections administrator must conform 

to the chapter 31 Election Code provisions specifically 

applicable thereto. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

RENEAHIcK!s 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

MADELEJNE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by William Walker 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. 693