EATTYDECNEY GENERAL 

TEXAS 

AUSTIN 11. -rExAs 

PRICE DANIEL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

August 27, 1948 

Hon. Looney E. Lindsey 

County Attorney 

Upshur County 

Gilmer, Texas 

Opinion No. V-672 

Re: Withdrawal of Bethlehem Common School District from the Indian 

Rock Consolidated 

School District. 

Dear Sir: 

We refer to your letter requesting an opinion 

from which we quote, in part, as follows: 

"More than three years ago Rev Bethlehem Common School District of Upshur 

County was consolidated with the Indian 

Rock Common School District of Upshur 

County, Texas, to form Indian Rock Consolidated School District of Upshur County, Texas. 

"At this time New Bethlehem seeks to 

withdraw from the Indian Rock Consolidated 

School District, Pursuant to this desire 

this community has presented to the County Judge of Upshur County a petition signed by more than twenty qualified voters 

of the old Rew Bethlehem Common School District (now a part of the Indian Rock Consolidated School District) asking that an 

election be held in the 016 Rev Bethlehem 

District to determine whether or not Rew 

Bethlehem should dissolve or vithdraw from 

the Indian Rock Consolidated School District. 

'Laboring under the impression that 

Art* 2815 (b) of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, was still in effect, the 

County Judge has ordered the election to 

be held on August 31, 1948, I am enclosing a copy of the election order and a 

copy of the notices which have been posted, 
Hon. Looney E. Lindsey, page 2 (V-672) 

"The matter has been brought to my 

attention and after studying the situation 

and the law, I have reached the following 

conclusions, on the correctness of which 

I desire your opinion D D e 

"An election held in only one of the 

original districts which comprise a consolidated district to determine the question of dissolution would be a void election and the Commissioner's Court would 

not be authorized to canvass said election or declare the results of said election. 

"The County Judge who ordered the 

election under a mistake of law has the 

power to rescind said order. 

Article 2815, V. C. S., as amended by H. B. 

544, 48th Legislature, Acts 1943, provides: 

"Article 2815. Dissolution. 

"(a) Such consolidated districts may, 

in the same manner provided for their consolidation, be dissolved and the districts 

included therein restored to their original 

status, except that it shall not be necessary to provide polling places in each district. Bach such district when so restored 

shall assume and be liable for its prorata 

part of the outstanding financial obligations of the consolidated district, such 

prorata part to be based on the relation 

the total assessed valuation of all property in the district bears to the total assessed valuation of property in the consolidated district, as shown by the assessment 

rolls of the district for the current year. 

No election fork the dissolution of said consolidated distriats shall be held until three 

(3) years have elapsed after the date of the 

election at which such districts were consolidated, 

"(b) On the petition of twenty (201, 

or a majority, of the legally qualified 

voters of any common school district9 or in- 
Hon. Looney E. Lindsey, page 3 (V-672) 

dependent school district, praying for the 

withdrawal from a consolidated district, 

If three (3) years have elapsed after the 

date of the election at which such districts 

were consolidated, the County Judge shall 

issue an order for an election to be held 

in the district desiring withdrawal. The 

County Judge shall give notice of the date 

of such election by publia8tion of the order in some newspaper published in the county for twenty (20) days prior to the date on 

which such elections are ordered, OP by posting a notice of such election in the district 

desiring the election, The Commissioners 

Court shall at its next meeting canvass the 

returns of such election, and if the votes 

cast in said district show a majority in 

favor of withdrawing from the consolidation, 

the Court shall declare the district severed and it sffall,be restored to its original 

status. e 0 

The present procedure for the dissolution~of 

an entire consolidated school district located within 

one county is set out in Article 2815(a), V. C. S, as 

amended, and Article-b 

said Act, which authorize 1 

V. C. S. Subsection (b) of 

and provided the procedurefor the wlthdrawal from a consolidated district of a 

district composing a part of such consolidation, was repealed by Section 3 of S. B. 181, 50th Legislature, Acts 

1947. 

Under the present law, therefore, although a 

consolidated school district may be dissolved completely, there is no provision authorizing a district comgoslng a part of the consolidated school district to 

wlthdraw.therefrom, There can only be a complete dlssolution of the consolidated district under and In accordance wl,$h Articles 2815(a), as amended, and 2815W, 

v. c. so; there cannot be a partial dissolution of same, 

It is elementary that the power of the Legislature to 

provide by general laws for the creation, changing OP 

dissolution of the school districts of Texas is plenary. 

Consolidated Common School District 180, 5 v, Wood, 112 

S,W.(2d) 235, writ refused. 

The authority previously placed and existing 

in the County Judge under subsection (b) of Article 

2815 to order an election to be held in the district 
Hono Loeney E. Lindsey, page 4 (V-672) 

. . 

do8irUg withdr8wal fpor the consolidates district upoa 

presentment of petition of twenty 4~ a majority of the' 

qualified voters of the district praying for withdrawal 

do4s.n4t now exist by virtue of the repeal of said subsection (b). 

We are umable to find any provision of law, 

now existing, whieh authorizes the qualified voters in 

a distrlat composing a part of a consolidated school 

district to initiate a petition for withdrawal of their 

district from the consolidation, or which authorizes the 

Countr Judge upon presentment of such a petition to order an election for the purpose in question. The power 

to dissolve the consolidated district and thereby reestablish the formerly existing compound districts is 

now delegated upon the condition that it be done in the 

same manner provid4d for their consolidation. Consolidated Common School District No. 5 v. Wood,, supra. 

It has been held that there can be no valid 

election if the sane has not been called by lawful authority, for the right to hold or order an election cannot 

exist or be lawfully exercised without express grant of 

power by the Constitution or Le islature. 

chell, 120 Tex. 324, 38 S.W.(2d 7 

Count2 v0 MitT 

773. 

,It follows that the election order under consideration herein is ineffective and void, Clearlg, under such oircumstances, the election order unauthorized 

and void may be set aside or rescinded, 

Stanford, 176 S,W.(2d) 

McLemore v* 

lips, 132 s.w,(2d) 519* 

770, at page 773; Holden'v, PhilAn election proposed to be held In 

only one of the original districts which 

comprise a consolidated school district, 

for the purpose of withdrawing from the 

consolidation, would be a void election. 

Countz v. Mitchell, 120 Tex. 324, 38 SOW, 

(28) 773; Article 2815, V. C. S., as amended by H, B. 544, 48th Legislature, Acts 

1943; Section 3 of S. B. 1.81, 50th,Leg., 

Acts 1947o