THEATITORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
December20, 1960
Mr. Alton R. Crlffln opinionNo. wu-976 CountyAttorney Lubbock,Texas Ra: The effectthat a precinctlocal option electionwill have upon a city which has heretoforevoted dry upon the same issue which is up for vote in the precinct,which lncludeblwithin its boundariesthe Dear Mr. Griffin: dry city, and relatedquestions.
Your requestreads in part as follows:
"On the 5th day of November,1960, the IncorporatedCity of Slaton,Texas, held a local option electionupon the issue for the sale of alcoholicbeveragesfor off-premsseconsumption. On December10, l&C, JusticePrecinct2 in the County of Lubbock will hold an electionfor the sale of alcoholicbeveragesfor off-premiseconsumption.The City of Slaton is complatalywithin the boundariesof JusticePrecinct2.
"I have read your OpinionWWgk5 concerningthe electionin GraysonCounty,Texas, and your opinionthat the county-wideelection would have no effect upon the City of Denisonwhich had previously voted wet. My questionsare as follows:
"(1) Will the City of Slaton remain dry regardlessof whether JusticePrecinct2 legalizesthe sale of alcoholicbeveragesor not?
"(2) Are the peoplewithin the city limits of Slaton entitled to vote in this precinctelectionsince only a month previousthey voted on the same issue in the City election?
"(3) If the majorityof the voters in the box locatedwithin the city limits of Slaton vote wet, will that result in the city being wet?
"My interpretationof the law end of your opinionas well as my discuesionwith you would be as follows: that the people of Slatonwould be entitledto vote in the precinctelectionand that
: ',... Mr. Alton R. Griffin,Page 2 (~-976)
the City of glaton,Texas, will remaindry regardlessof the outcomo~of the precinotelectionand regardlessof this vote in the City of Slaton ltaelf."
Your interpretation of the law and of AttorneyGeneral'sOpinionNo. WW-945 is correct.
In WW-945, it was statedthat the 1959 case of k&era v. Martinez,320 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Civ.App., 1959)~writref. n.r,e.,per curiamopinion326 S.W. 26 171r was controllingth~.thtg,typecf~edt~atio~i:~d'Yie~,fo3~Wing;exC~acf;sjfr that case are pertinent:
*Appellantfurthercontendsthat the theory of local self-government requiresthat the will of the county should controlover the will of the precinctor city. We do not agree. The doctrineof local self-government requiresthat the will of the smallerunit shall controlover the will of the largerunit. The doctrineof local self-government will not supporta rule to the effectthat the countymust controlthe precinctor city." (Emphasisadded.)
"It is plain from the provisionsof the 1935 amendment and the statuteenactedthereunder,that the Legislaturein submittingthe constitutional~amendment and'enactingthe statute,and the people in adoptingthe 1935 amendment,inten- ded that counties,justice'sprecinctsand incorporated.IQitSes~ or towns shouldbe on an equal footing,and that by complying with the provisionsof the law either of them might hold an electionany time to either "legalize',or,'prohibit': the sale of alcoholicbeverages,in keepingwith the provisionsof Sec. 40, Art. 666, Vernon'sAnn. Penal Code. The only limitationis that an electionfor.thesame purposein the same area must not be held oftenerthan once a year, as is providedby Article g66-32, which reads in part as follows:
'No subsequentelectionupon the same issue shallbe held within one (1) year from the date of the last precedinglocal option electionin any county,justice'sprecinct,or incorporatedcity or towne"' (Emphasisadded,)
To answer your questionsspecifically,first,the City of Slatonwould remain dry regardlessof whetherJusticePrecinct2 legalizesthe sale of alco- holic beveragesor not. The