I OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN **GROVER SELLERS**  **. .**  **Arroa~~ GENERAL** 

**.**

.Eonorable Jamesk~.Crane **DlStriCt** Attorney confoe, Texas pear Sir:

ycw.r recent knt reads in part as Opinion ITo. O-6546 Re: Does the defeat of

request for an f011w1s:

**time two**  **simlta** JOSUbdiVi- ’

**. ,**  **a county-da6**  **id** county-vii&e elecwwasdefeated, would

substquently, hold in that same subdivision that votes it out)?? The splendid brief subndttcd with your rquest has been very helpful to the writer and in the absence of Texas :., \

- .

c i Boaorable James & Crane, Page 3 643

**resulted** In the defeat of prohibition. It la oontended this defeat abrogated the law in rreolnot 0. In other words, lZ local option is legally in foroe in a proolnot, mode so by eleotlon in that proolnot, that a subooquent eleotlon, held for the ’ l entire oounty, resulting acalnst prohibition, has the efieot to repeal or abrogate looal option in that sold preolnot. To this proposition weoannot agree, Byreferenoe to the various provlslons of

. the local option statutes weare informed that the. people of the entire county oannot express their views upon this subjoot so ns to defeat or ropeal local optlon In any subdivision OSthe county, INorcan the people OSa preolnot by vote dofoat prohlbltlon in any subdlvlslon of that precinct town or olty. The county maySoroe prohibition by.avote over preolnots whloh are .not in Savor of it, and 50maya preofnot over oltles, towns, or subdivisions thereof that maynot be in Savor of it, but oannot force, by vote, repeal OSit in any town, city, or subdivision thereof. Thepeople *

. ~ OSthe county, outside OSthe territory to be af ’- Seoted, have noright to vote at all as to the law in that oubdivlslon. Main, the people of the county have never voted on the proposltlon that l.,w,z’, gptlon should or should not prevail in Pre-

.

. Theyvoted on the proposition whether prohibition should prevail in the whole. county. Great manyvoters might oppose prohibition Sor the county, andyet heartily eupport it for preolnots lnwhloh they have no polioe coroe, as well as Sor other reasons euttlolently oogent to their minds. * ? Therule in the 

### Aaron’oase was reannounoed in faokeon V. State, :~118,s. %. (26) 313. :i’e think the reaeonlng in these cases is .i ofequal Soroe ‘whenapplied to the stock law situation. The : najorlty of the voters in a oounty-wide eleotlon, votln& “for j thestook law* In the entire oounty, necessarily deternine by their vote that the law shall be effeotlve in every subdlvlalon OSthe county. Onthe other hand, where amajority in i acounty-wide eleotlon, votes against the atook law Sor the i entire county, it cannot be said that the electors are llkewisevoting against tb stook law for eaoh and every mbdlvii sion OSthe oounty., Certainly a voter might disravor the 

### adoption OSthe stook law in an entire oounty 

### oomposedoS. ,.ii 644 ; Honorable Jamesm. arane, page 4

both iarming andranching areas, while at the sametime favoring the adoption and enforoement of the law ln a eubdlvlalon eultoble for farming only. ”

It seems to us that our views on this matter are strengthened by the Saot that Artlole 6964 provides in part that, wthe defeat OSthe proposition for a county shell not prevent another oleotlon from being held immediately thereafter for any subdivision OSsuoh county, nor shall a defeat OSthe proposition Sor any subdivision prevent an eleotlon from being held lmmedlately thereafter Sor the entire. 0ounty.w IS it had been intended by the Legislature that the defeat, OStho stook law in a oounty eleotlon would result in the

. creation of n oounty-wide status or oounty-wide repeal oS the stock ‘law, then it would seemsenseless to authorize the immediate alteration of suoh a status by any subdivision.

It la our ‘oonoluslon that ths defeat of ths atook law in your oountywould not alter the etatus OSany of its, subdivisions. Very truly yours =

‘ATTORN2X GXN?BAL OFTEXAS

EA:mp +