Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1972 )


Menu:
  • Hon. J. W. Edgar               ,Opinion No.   M-1200
    Commissioner of Education
    201 East 11th Street           Re:   Whether Article 2688v, V.C.S.,
    Austin, Texas 78701                  operates to abolish the offices
    of county superintendent, ex-
    officio county superintendent,
    and the county school board in
    Caldwell County, and related
    Dear   Dr.   Edgar:                  questions.
    You have requested the opinion of this office on the
    following questions:
    (1) Does Article 2688v*, Vernon's Civil Statutes,
    operate to abolish in Caldwell County the offices of
    county superintendent, and the offices of ex-officio
    county superintendent (non-existent) and county
    school board?
    (2) If (1) is answered in the affirmative,
    what officer or office is charged with the ~perform-
    ante of the duties of the office(s),abolished?
    In addition, you have supplied us with the following
    pertinent information:
    "At the November 1966 election, a county super-
    intendent was elected.for a four-year term to expire
    December 31, 1970. Since there was talk within that
    interim of abolishing the office, no one ran or was
    elected in November 1970 for a four-year term to
    *Acts 62nd Leg., R.S. 1971, ch. 167, p. 957.
    -5876-
    Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 2             (M-1200)
    begin January 1, 1971. In lieu thereof, the same
    county superintendent (now serving) was appointed
    to serve until such time, presumably, when the
    office was expected to be abolished prior to a
    next election. Article 2355, V.C.S."
    Article 2688v, Vernon's Civil Statutes, states:
    "In all counties having a population of not less
    than 21,000 nor more than 22,000, according to the
    last preceding federal census, the offices of county
    superintendent and ex officio county superintendent,
    and the county school board are abolished effective
    September 1, 1972."
    It is our opinion that Article 2688~ is unconstitutional
    in that it is restricted in its application to only one out of
    Texas' 254 counties. It is a local or special law which attempts
    to regulate the management of public schools in contravention of
    Article III, Section 56, of the Texas Constitution. The Supreme
    Court of Texas, in Miller v. El Paso County, 
    136 Tex. 370
    , 
    150 S.W.2d 1000
    (1941), at pp. 1001 and 1002, has stated the prevail-
    ing rule regarding this type of legislation:
    "Notwithstanding the above constitutional pro-
    vision, the courts recognize in the Legislature a
    rather broad power to make classifications for
    legislative purposes and to enact laws for the regu-
    lation thereof, even though such legislation may be
    applicable only to a particular classor, in fact,
    affect only the inhabitants of a particular locality;
    but such legislation must be intended to apply uni-
    formly to all who may come within the classification
    designated in the Act, and the classification must
    be broad enough to include a substantial class and
    must be based on characteristics legitimately dis-
    tinguishing such class from others with respect
    to the public purpose sought to be accomplished by
    the proposed legislation. In other words, there
    must be a substantial reason for the classification.
    It must not be a mere arbitrary device resorted to
    for the purpose of giving what is, in fact, a local
    law the appearance of a general law."
    In our opinion Article 2688~ would create a class of
    counties without substantial basis and without sufficient legal
    -58'77-
    Hon. J.   W.   Edgar,'page'3              (M-1200)
    distinguishing features and is therefore proscribed as a local or
    special law by Article III, Section 56 of the Texas Constitution.
    That being true, the statute does not operate to abolish in Caldwell
    County the office of county school superintendent or the offices
    of ex-officio county superintendent and county school board. See
    Attorney General's Opinions C-244 (1964), C-481 (1965), M-488
    (1969) and M-745 (1970).
    Article XVI, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution reads:
    "All officers within this State shall continue to perform the
    duties of their offices until their successors shall be duly
    qualified." Therefore from the additional information you have
    furnished us, the county superintendent duly elected in the
    November, 1966 election, and presently still serving in that
    capacity, even though his four-year term of office has expired,
    must perform the duties of that office until a successor has been
    lawfully selected and has qualified , or until the office has been
    legally abolished. However, he might.vacate the office by quali-
    fying for other public duties. State v. Valentine, 
    198 S.W. 1006
     (Tex.Civ.App. 1917, error ref.);100 A.L.R. 1162, 1180; 47 Tex.
    Jur.Zd 63-64, Public Officers, Sec. 42. Also, the office might
    become vacant by some other means provided in the Texas Consti-
    tution.
    SUMMARY
    Article 2688`` Vernon's Civil Statutes, (Acts
    62nd Leg., R.S. 1971, ch. 167, p. 957) is uncon-
    stitutional and therefore does not abolish the
    offices of county superintendent, ex-officio county
    superintendent, or county school board in Caldwell
    County, Texas.
    V&ruly       yours,
    C. MARTIN
    ey General of Texas
    Prepared by Linda Neeley
    Assistant Attorney General
    -5878-
    Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 4            (M-1200)
    ,-PROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
    Roland Carlson
    Charles Lind
    Dunk Sullivan
    Rob Lemens
    SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL
    Staff Legal Assistant
    ALFRED WALKER
    Executive Assistant
    NOLA WRITE
    First Assistant
    -5879-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-1200

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1972

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017