Texas Attorney General Opinion: GA-93 Page: 4 of 6
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Honorable Robert B. Scheske - Page 4
by two separate petitions. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 0-6704 (1945). The opinion concluded that
a single election was permissible provided the election officials took precautions to make "clear and
certain the result as to the two distinct elections being held by the same election officials at the same
time." Id. at 3-4. However, while Lock, Scurlock, and the attorney general opinion permit a single
election for propositions based on different subchapters, none authorize combining the propositions
so that the voter may only approve both or neither.
An election order that combines proposals from separate petitions into a single ballot
proposition may be objectionable for several reasons. First, a court could conclude that the
commissioners court's election order was invalid because it did not conform to the petitions. A
commissioners court does not possess independent authority to order a local option stock election,
but may only order an election pursuant to a petition as prescribed by statute. See Exparte Simmons,
277 S.W. 693, 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1925). Consequently, a commissioners court may not order
an election at variance with the petition. See id.; West End Rural High Sch. Dist. ofAustin County
v. Columbus Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Colorado County, 221 S.W.2d 777, 779 (Tex. 1949)
(countyjudge' s order for election to consolidate school districts that did not conform to petitions was
void). As one court has stated:
The petition for an election is fundamental andjurisdictional. It is the
basis of the court's action in ordering the election. The court is not
at liberty to disregard the request to order the election prayed for, if
the requisites of the statute have been complied with; nor is it at
liberty to alter the request for an election by ordering an election
different from the one called for by the petition.
Coleman v. Hallum, 232 S.W. 296, 297 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1921,judgm't adopted). By combining
proposals from the petitions into a single proposition, the commissioners court ordered an election
that did not conform to either petition.
Second, a court would likely conclude that the two proposals cannot be combined into a
single proposition because they concern separate and distinct matters under subchapters B and D.
A ballot that combines two or more separate and distinct propositions is invalid. See Royalty v.
Nicholson, 411 S.W.2d 565, 570 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Garcia v. Duval
Co., 354 S.W.2d 237, 238-39 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1962, writ ref d n.r.e.); Adams v. Mullen,
244 S.W. 1083 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1922, writ ref'd).
Finally, a court could conclude that the combined proposition is invalid because it is
inconsistent with the statute. When an election statute prescribes the exact form of the proposition
to appear on the ballot, courts generally require that the ballot language strictly conform to the
statute. See Davenport v. Comm 'rs Ct. of Denton County, 557 S.W.2d 530, 531-32 (Tex. Civ.
App.-Texarkana 1977, no writ) (local option liquor law); Wright v. Bd. ofTrs. ofTatum Indep. Sch.
Dist., 520 S.W.2d 787, 792 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1975, writ dism'd) (school bond election);
McGraw v. Newby, 496 S.W.2d 250, 252 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1973, no writ) (local option(GA-0093)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: GA-93, text, August 28, 2003; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth274989/m1/4/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.