# T~CA~ORNEYGENERAT~ OF TEXAS AWESTIN. 

### TRXAEI 78711

March 5. 1975 The Honocable M. L. Brockette Comminaioner of Education Texan Education Agency 201 East 11thStreet Austin, Texas 78701 Opinion No. H- 545 Re: Constitutionality and effect ofHouse Bill 1358. 63rd Legislature. Dear Dr. Brockstte:

You have requerted our opinion regarding the conrtitutionality ofHouse 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 feuridto 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, andHenderron 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 thatit 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 Countyalone been the subject ofHouse Bill 1358, it ia apparent thatthe

p. 2453The 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).

Itwould seem unrearonable to peimit the Legislature toavoid this prohibition merely byincluding five counties within a single statute. In any event there is ampIe authority for holding House Bill 1358 a local or special law.

InRios v. State, 288 S.W. 2d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955), the Court of Criminal Appeals struck downa statute which provided that jurors should be selected by jury commissioners rather thanby thejury wheel ayeternin countlen comprising the 25thJudicial District and the Special 25th Judicial District. The statute was applicable to only three “’ counties, andits “effect
. . . was to take the counties of Guadalupe, Lavaca and Gonzales out of thejury wheel ‘system. ” 288 SW.‘2d at 78. The Court u&s able to see “no escape from the conclusion thatthe act .i’
. . is a special law” and therefore unconstitutional. A similar statute was held invalid inHeflin v. Wilson, 297 S.W. 2d 864 (Tex. Civ. App. --Beaumont 1956). Inthis case, the law was limited in its application -toAngelina, Cherokee andNacogdoches counties.

We must conclude thatHouse Bill 1358is 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 toaddress ourselves to your other questions. ,. S.UMMARY House Bill 1358, which purports toabolish 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. 2454The Honorable M. L. Brockette page 3 (H- 545)

KENDALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 2455