GENERAL THEATITORNEY OF TEXAS

December20, 1960

Mr. Alton R. Crlffln CountyAttorney Lubbock,

Texas opinion No. wu-976
Ra: The effectthat a precinctlocal option election

will have upon a city which has heretofore voted dry upon the same issuewhich is up for vote in the precinct, which lncludebl

within its boundaries the Dear Mr. Griffin: dry city, and related questions.
Your requestreads in part as follows: "On the 5th day of November, 1960, the Incorporated City of Slaton,

Texas, held a local option election upon the issue for the sale of alcoholic beverages

for off-premsse

consumption. On December

10, l&C, JusticePrecinct2 in the County of Lubbock will hold an electionfor the sale of alcoholic beverages

for off-premise

consumption.The City of Slaton is complataly within the boundaries

of JusticePrecinct2.
"I have read your Opinion WWgk5 concerning

the electionin Grayson

County,

Texas, and your opinionthat the county-wide election would have no effectupon the City of Denison which had previously voted wet. My questions are as follows: "(1) Will the City of Slaton remaindry regardless of whether Justice

Precinct2 legalizes the sale of alcoholic beverages

or not? "(2) Are the peoplewithin the city limits of Slaton entitled to vote in this precinct electionsince only a month previous they voted on the same issue in the City election? “(3) If the majority of the voters in the box located within the city limits of Slatonvote wet, will that result in the city being wet? "My interpretation

of the law end of your opinionas well as my discuesion

with you would be as follows: that the people of Slatonwould be entitled to vote in the precinctelection and that

: ‘ ,...Mr. Alton R. Griffin, Page 2 (~-976) the City of glaton, Texas,will remaindry regardless of the outcomo~of the precinotelection and regardless

of this vote in the City of Slaton ltaelf."
Your interpretation of the law and of AttorneyGeneral's Opinion

No. WW-945 is correct.
In WW-945, it was statedthat the 1959 case of k&era v. Martinez, 320 S.W.2d862 (Tex.Civ.App., 1959)~writ

**ref.** n.r,e.,per curiamopinion 326 S.W. 26 171r was controlling th~.thtg,type

cf~edt~atio~i:~d'Yie~,fo3~Wing;exC~acf;sjfrom that case are pertinent:

*Appellant

furthercontends

that the theory of local self-government

requires

that the will of the county should controlover the will of the precinct or city. We do not agree. The doctrine of local self-government requires

that the will of the smaller unit shall controlover the will of the largerunit. The doctrine of local self-government will not support

a rule to the effectthat the countymust control the precinctor city." (Emphasis added.)
"It is plain from the provisions of the 1935 amendment and the statuteenacted thereunder,

that the Legislature in submitting

the constitutional~amendment and'enacting

the statute,

and the people in adopting the 1935 amendment,intended that counties, justice's

precincts

and incorporated.IQitSes~ or towns shouldbe on an equal footing, and that by complying with the provisions of the law either of them might hold an election

any time to either "legalize',or ,'prohibit':

the sale of alcoholic

beverages,

in keeping

with the provisions of Sec. 40, Art. 666, Vernon's Ann. Penal Code. The only limitation is that an election

for.the same purpose in the same area must not be held oftenerthan once a year, as is provided by Article g66-32, which reads in part as follows:

'No subsequent

electionupon the same issue shallbe held within one (1) year from the date of the last preceding local option electionin any county, justice's precinct,

or incorporated

city or towne"' (Emphasis added,)
To answeryour questions specifically,

first,the City of Slaton would remain dry regardless of whetherJusticePrecinct2 legalizes the sale of alcoholic beverages

or not. The City of Slaton is the smaller governmental

unit of the two, smallerin. size and population, and completely

within the boundaries of Precinct2. So, carrying the doctrine

of local self-government to the smallest unit, the declared result is apparent.Mr. Alton R. Griffin, Page 3 (w-976) Second,the peoplewithin the city limits of Slaton~are entitled

to vote in this Precinct2 election even though they voted on the same issue in the city election

only s month prior to the precinctelection. In a precinct-wide election, every eligible

voter in the precinctis entitled to vote. The eligible voters of the city of Slatonwould not be prohibited from participating

becauseof their recent election

for the reason that the areas covered by the elections

are not the same. Third, if the majority of the voters in the box located within the city limits of Slatonvote wet, that would not result in the city becoming wet. The precinctelectionis not a city electionand would have no effecton the previous election

held by the smaller governmental

unit, the City of Slaton.
As Attorney

General's

Opinion

No. WW-945 stated, to reach a different result in such situations would be contrary

to the will of the voters in the cities,towns and justice's precincts,

contrary

to the holding in Myers v. Martinez,supra,>$nd contrary

to the wording of the 1935 Constitutional Amendment.
SUMMARY 1. The city of Slaton would remain dry regardless of whetherJustice Precinct

plegalizes the sale of alcoholic beverages

or not. 2. The peopiewithin the city limits of glatonare entitled to vote in this Precinct2 election even though they voted on the same issue in the city option election

a month earlier, 30 If the majority of the voteas in the box located within the city limits of Slatonvote wet, that would not result in the city becoming wet. - Very truly yours,

WILL WILSON Attorney

Gsneralof Texas

APPROVFD: OPINIONCOMMI!lYEE W. V. Gepport,

Chairman
Leon Pesek Bill Allen W. Ray Scru&y Ben Harrl&n iy GLEZNR. BROWN Assistant

_’
I RBV~FORTBBATTORNEY GENERAL

BY; IaonsrdPassmore