T~CA~ORNEYGENERAT~ 

OF TEXAS 

AWESTIN. TRXAEI 78711 

March 5. 1975 

The Honocable M. L. Brockette 

Comminaioner of Education 

Texan Education Agency 

201 East 11th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Opinion No. H- 545 

Re: Constitutionality and 

effect of House Bill 1358. 

63rd Legislature. 

Dear Dr. Brockstte: 

You have requerted our opinion regarding the conrtitutionality 

of House Bill 1358, Chapter 206 (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 477), which 

purports to abolirh in Garza County and four other counties the office 

of county school ruperintendentand the county board of school trustees. 

You inquire further of rome of the effects in Garza County if the etatute 

is feurid to be valid. 

Heure Bill 1358 proclaimr that: 

The office of county superintendent of 

schoolr and the county board of school trustees 

in Terry County, Garza County, Dawson County, 

Angelina County, and Henderron County are 

abolished. .~.. 

The Bill purport8 to transfer the county superintendent’s dutiee 

to the ruperintendentr of the various independent school dirtricts in each 

county. 

The objection to thir legialation ir that it is a local or special law, 

exprersly prohibited by the Texas Conatitutio_n, whichprovides~in.article_ 3, 

section 56 that “[tjhe Legislature shall not, except aa otherwise provided 

in thin Conrtitution, pals any local or special law . . . [rlegulating the 

affairs of counties, cities, towna, wardr or rchool diatricta.” Had Garza 

County alone been the subject of House Bill 1358, it ia apparent that the 

p. 2453 
The Honorable M. L. Brockette page 2 (H- 545) 

measure would be unconstitutional, just as was the 63rd Legislature’s 

purported abolition of the office of county school rupreintendent in Wheeler 

County. Attorney General Opinion H-52 (1973). 

It would seem unrearonable to peimit the Legislature to avoid this 

prohibition merely by including five counties within a single statute. In 

any event there is ampIe authority for holding House Bill 1358 a local or 

special law. 

In Rios v. State, 288 S. W. 2d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955), the 

Court of Criminal Appeals struck down a statute which provided that 

jurors should be selected by jury commissioners rather than by the jury 

wheel ayetern in countlen comprising the 25th Judicial District and the 

Special 25th Judicial District. The statute was applicable to only three “’ 

counties, and its “effect . . . was to take the counties of Guadalupe, 

Lavaca and Gonzales out of the jury wheel ‘system. ” 288 SW.‘2d at 78. 

The Court u&s able to see “no escape from the conclusion that the act . i’. . 

is a special law” and therefore unconstitutional. A similar statute was 

held invalid in Heflin v. Wilson, 297 S. W. 2d 864 (Tex. Civ. App. --Beaumont 1956). In this case, the law was limited in its application -to Angelina, 

Cherokee and Nacogdoches counties. 

We must conclude that House Bill 1358 is a special or local law 

purporting S ,0 regulate’the affairs of counties in contravention of article 

3, section 56 of the Texas Constitution. Since the statute does not therefore 

act to abolish the office of county school superintendent and the county 

school board of Garza County, it is unnecessary to address ourselves to 

your other questions. ,. 

S.UMMARY 

House Bill 1358, which purports to abolish the 

office of county school superintendent and the county 

board of school trurtees in Garsa County, is a local 

or special law pertaining to’s school district, and is 

therefore unconstitutional. 

/I~ Attorney General of Texas 

v 

p. 2454 
The Honorable M. L. Brockette page 3 (H- 545) 

KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2455