Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1961 )


Menu:
  •              -
    March 22,     1961
    Mr. Richard E. Rudeloff              O~lnlon       No. WW-1024
    County Attorney
    Bee County                           Re:    .Jihen must property      be ren-
    Beeville,  Texas                             dered for taxation       in order
    to qualify     a person,   under
    Art. ‘5.03 of the Xection
    Code, to vote in a bond
    election,    to be held in
    April,     1961, and rela.ted
    Dear Mr. Rudeloff:                           questions.
    You have stated   in your opinion   request  that a bond
    election   “is to be held in Bee County in March, 1961, to decide
    the proposition    of an $850,000 bond issue to establish       a county
    hospital.”     You have submitted   to this office   the following
    two questions    to be answered:
    1.  “When and within what period    of time must property
    be rendered for taxation   in order to qualify   an elector, under
    Art. 5.03 of the Election   Code, to vote in a bond election    to
    be held in March, 1961?”
    2.   “Must property   be rendered  by an elector    himself,
    or his agent,    to qualify   him to vote in such election,     or does
    the placing   of his property    on the unrendercd  list    by the tax
    assessor   so qualify  him?”
    Subsequent  to receiving     your opinion   request  this
    office  was advised  that the proposed     bond election    would bc’
    held on April 1, 1961.     The April date will be used in this
    opinion  Instead  of the’March   date.
    Section     3a of Article         VI of &e Texa.s Constitution,         a.s
    amended in 1932,     reads,     in part,     tis fo’Llows:
    “When an electlon     is held:‘by any county..,,for
    the purpose of issuing      bonds, e e a .only quaiii’ied
    electors   who own taxable     property     in the....
    county....    and who have. duly’ rendered      the same
    for taxation,.   shall be qur)lified      to vote...   .I’
    Artiole    5.03 of the Electi&rCode          originally    enacted
    this   provision    Into law verbatim.
    -
    Mr. Richard   ‘E. Rudeloff,       page 2      (YW-1024)
    In 1957 the Legislature     added          the   following       amendment
    to Art;   5.03 of the Election    Code:
    “Property       &hall be deemed to have been duly
    rendered for taxation,               for the purpose of
    determining         eligibility        to vote in an election
    as provided        In this Code and in Article             VI,
    Section      3a of the Constitution            of this Sta.te,
    only If the ,property             was rendered     to the
    county,      city,     district,       or other political
    subdivision        holding       the election     within the
    perlod     of time fixed          by law for such rendition,
    or was placed on the tax rolls                 by the tax
    assessor      prior      to the date on which the election
    was ordered,         if the regular        rendition    period
    expired before           that date.       In making up the
    certified       list     of owners of taxable         property
    to be used at an election,                the tax collector
    shall     Include      thereon only the names of per-
    sons owning         taxable      property    which has been
    duly rendered          for taxation,       as herein defined,”
    The courts  have Interpreted    Art. 5.03 on severa,
    occasions  orior  to the 1957 amendment.      In the leading    case
    of Caperton v. Thorpe, 24b.S.W.2d      329 (Civ.Ap,p.,lg51)-the     court
    at page jrheld:
    “Our Constitution,        Art.,6,     Sec. 3a, Vernon’s           Ann.St.,
    provides    that only qualified           electors     who own
    taxable   propeTty     in the county where such e1e.ction
    is held and who ha,ve dll3.y rendered the same for
    taxation    shall be qualified          to vote.       J?fe br:lizv:
    the trial    court correctly         ruled that a person
    who had rendered his property              either    in 1$-g
    or 1950 was a qualified           voter.      nli S-G the only
    reasonable    ~construction       of t’he law.       The 1.a.ri
    permits    owners of prpperty         to render their          taxes
    through April 30th of any ,givcnyear                 under
    Art. 7151, Revised         Civil   Statutes      1925, Vernon's
    Ann.Civ.St.     art.,7151.,       It will;      therefore,       be
    seen that if the election            had b&n called          on
    January 2, 1950, there would have been many
    people who regularly          rendered     their property
    within   the time prescribed          by statute       a.nd whc:
    were otherwise       qualified      to vote in the. ~zl&z:tiotl  ``-
    but who had not rendered            their    property     for
    taxes in 1950 and would not hs.ve been ailo??&
    to vote in the election.”              (Bnpha,sLs added)
    Mr. F3.cha.M 3. Rudeloff,          page 3 (InJ-102i!.)
    Since the courts  have construed   Sec. 3a, of Art. VI
    of t’he Texas Constitution,     which wa.s later   enacted a.s Art.
    ,5.0.3 of the Election    Code, we are of the opinion      t:mt the
    holding     in the Caperton case is still    the law.    ;!c do not
    feel    that the 1957 amendment to Art. 5.G3 ha.s af’f’ccted     tha.t
    holding.
    Therefore,  it is the opinion       of this office   that an
    othl-r:lise qua.lificd elector   is eligible      to vote in 2. 3oi73. elec-
    tion if he ‘had rendered his property        either   in l$G or does
    render it anytime prior      to the time ‘he votes in an election
    which is held before    Nay 1, 1961.
    In answer to your second question,               thLs office     in
    Attorney      Genera,1 Opinion No. O-2126, sa,id in nffm:                 t:?a,t if
    rendition       of property      for taxes is made ‘by an azen’; of the owner,
    or if such property            is assessed     by the tax assessor,         the re-
    ciuiremcnts
    I                of Sec. ?a. of Art. VI of the Constitution                of Taxas
    a,73   me’c. The ca.s;s-of          Carnob& v. ‘Xrixht,       95 S.~;~:.2d 3?!.9, (Civ.
    .kg,p.,l536)     and Texas Tublic Utility            Corpora.tion   v. :Io!m,
    
    123 S.W.2d 102Z
    , (Civ.App.,lg38,                 error dismissad)      ar,? cited. In
    _
    sur)7ort    ol'   ti-,et op-in-ion.     These  cases   decided    tY1a.t assessment
    rmcle by the tax a..ssessor           is sufficient     to meet :I;? r?,:``JjJcrflci]ts
    of s2c. 3a of Art. VI of the Constitution                   of   TCZXZ~Sthy’; pr~pcrty
    ij J “dimly rendered”        in order for its owner to be e_‘~;r;iYJ;c to vote
    j.n a bond election.
    Therefore,     il: view of the prior Attorney           G2i?cra.l.‘s
    CoInion and the cases cited,            it is tile opinion        of’ tkj.3 offi.ce
    tha.t the tax assessor          by ``l.acIng t!le property      of a,n o~khemlso
    f.j``!a.iified elector    Oil the Lg69 unrell5erXl         tax rolls   prior        to the
    Lake the election         1.s orde:red,   qual.it’ies    such elector      to T.TO``irj
    2 boric?. zlect?.on    to b-7 held in A.pril,         1961.
    Mr. Richard   E. .Rudeloff,   page-4   (Ww-1024)
    LS:jh
    APPROVXD:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    N.V. Geppert, Chairman
    Jerry Roberts
    Eudley McCalla
    John Phillips
    XY: Morga.n Nesbitt
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WW-1024

Judges: Will Wilson

Filed Date: 7/2/1961

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017