Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1975 )

The Honorable M. L. Brockette Opinion No. H- 555
Commissioner, of Education
Texas Education Agency Re: Voting status of county
201 East 11th Street line independent school district
Austin, Texas 78701 residents and procedure for
detaching and annexing school
The Honorable George E. Dowlen district territory.
Criminal District Attorney
Randall County
Canyon, Texas 79015
Gentlemen:
You have asked whether persons residing in Randall County but
living within the boundaries of the Amarillo Independent School District
are permitted to vote for the offices of Randall County Board of School
Trustees. The Amarillo Independent School District, a county-line
district, is under the administrative control of Potter County pursuant
to-section 17.01, Education Code. Attorney General Opinion V-591 (1948),
based on section 8 of article 2742b. V. T. C. S., decided that such residents
of an independent school district could not vote in elections to fill county
school trustee posts for the county which did not have administrative
control of the school district in which they lived. Subsequently statutory
changes have prompted reconsideration of that conclusion.
In 1969 Titles 1 and 2 of the Texas Education Code were ad~opted.
Article 2742b, V. T. C. S. was expressly repealed.. Many of its provisions
were incorporated into various sections of the new Education Code, but
not the provision of section 8 upon which Opinion V-591 was based.
Former article 2745a, V. T. C. S. spoke directly to the election of
county school trustees, permitting residents of a school district to vote
for the’county school trustees having management and control of the school
district regardless of the county in which *lived. Its successor, section
19.104 of the Education Code, now reads:
p. 2494
The Honorable M. L. Brockette
The Honorable George E. Dowlen page 2 (H-555)
All persons who are otherwise qualified to-vote in
an election involving a school district question and who
reside in a county line school district shall be entitled
to vote at any such election involving the school district
regardless of whether or not such voters reside in the
county having management and control of the county. line
district.
No definition is given of “a school district question” or “any such
election involving the school district, ” but we think it remained the
intention of the Legislature to permit persons situated in areas under the
management and control of particular trustees to have a voice in their
selection. In fact, the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution
may require it. Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50 (1970);
Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968).
Section 17.02 of the Education Code specifies that “unless otherwise
provided by~law” the county board of school trustees of a county shall be
composed of five members, one of whom shall be elected from each of the
four commissioners precincts of the county by the qualified voters of such
precincts, and one from tbe county at large. Inasmuch as section 19.104
of the Education Code permits voters living outside a county to vote in any
election for the county school trustees of that county if those trustees
administer and control a county-line school district, the “unless otherwise
provided by law” language of section 17.02 is applicable.
’ Tbe Texas Con~stitution deems every person a qualified elector who
is of the requisite age, who has resided in Texas one year, and who has
resided in the county or district in which he or she offers to vote for the
last six months prior to the election. Art. 6, § 2, Tex. Const. The
Legislature cannot prescribe a different standard unless the Constitution
authorizes it. King v. Carlton Ind. Sch. Dist., 295 S. W. 2d 408 (Tex.
Sup. 1956).
In our opinion, persons residing in a county line school district
but not in the county having management and control of the school district
offer to vote in the school district when they seek to vote for county school
trustees pursuant to section 19.104 of the Electi,on Code. This concept
p. 2495
The Honorable M. L. Brockette
The Honorable George E. Dowlen page 3 (H-555)
is supported by subsections (d) and (e) of section 17.03 of the Code
which governs the manner of holding elections for county and other
school trustees. Those subsections provide that the order for such
elections must designate as voting places in each school district the
same places used for voting on district trustees and they specify that
residents of a commissioners precinct may thereby validly be required
to vote at polling places outside that precinct. See Teeple v. Beedy,
316 S.W.ad 31 (Tex. Civ. App. --Amarillo 1958, norit).
We are therefore of the opinion that persons may vote only for
those county school trustees who have management and control of the
school district in which they reside, and may not vote for county school
trustees who do not have such power, even though they reside in the county
for which the school trustees are to be elected. Persons residing within
the Amarillo Independent School District may not cast votes in elections
for county school trustees of Randall County.
Each of you has also addressed a situation arising from the desire
of a land developer located in the City of Amarillo, but within Randall
County and the Canyon Independent School District, to have sixty acres
of land detached from the Canyon Independent School District and annexed
to the Amarillo Independent School District.‘ Mr. Dowlen has posed these
questions:
(1) May the Randall County School Board detach
land from the Canyon Independent School District
without its consent?
(2) Does the Randall County School Board have
any authority to detach or annex land without pre-
viously having been given approval by the Amarillo
Independent School District?
(3) Assuming that all conditions have~been met
prior to the hearing set out in Article 19.261, Texas
Education Code, must the Randall County School Board
detach and annex the land as sought in the petition, or
is it purely a discretionary function on their part?
p. 2496
The Honorable M. L., Brockette
The Honorable George E. Dowlen page 4 (H-555)
The procedure for detaching territory from one school district
and annexing it to another is set out in Chapter 19 of the Texas Education
Code, Subchapter I. The various provisions of sub,chapters J and K
either do not apply or do not affect the results. Section 19.261 reads:
(a) The county school trustees or county board
of education, as the case may be, in each county of
this state shall have the authority, when duly peti-
tioned as herein provided and in compliance with
the limitations of Subchapter K of this chapter, to
detach fro@ annex to any school district territory
contiguous to the common boundary line of the two
districts.
(b) The petition requesting detachment and
annexation must:
(1) be signed by a majority of the qualified voters
residing in the territory to be detached from one
district and added to the other; and
(2) give the metes and bounds of the territory to
be detached from one district and added to the other.
(c) The proposed annexation must be approved by
a majority of the board of truetees of the district to
which the annexation is to be made.
(d) Unless the petition is signed by a majority of
the trustees of the district from which the territory
is to be detached, no school district territory may
be detached where the ratio of the number of scho-
lastics residing in the district from which the territory
is ~to be detached is less than one-half the ratio of the
assessed valuation (based on preceding year valuations)
in the territory to be detached to the total assessed
valuation (based on the preceding year valuations) of
the district from which the area is to be detached.
p. 2497
The Honorable M. L. Brockette
The Honorable George E. Dowlen page 5 (H-555)
(e) No school district may be reduced to an area
of less than nine square miles.
(f) Upon receipt of the petition and notice of the
approval as required by this section, the county
governing board shall notify the trustees of any
other common school districts which may be affected
by any contemplated change and ,specify the place and
date at which a hearing on the matter shall be held
and at which the trustees of any common school district
to be affected shall be given an opportunity to be heard.
(g) After tbe conclusion of the hearing, the county
governing board may pass an order transferring the
territory and redefining the boundaries of the district
affected by the transfer. Tbe order shall be recorded
in the minutes of the county governing board.
(h) Any outstanding indebtedness affected by a
change in boundaries shall be adjusted by the county
governing board as provided in Subchapter N of this
chapter.
We are advised by the attorney for the Canyon Independent School
District that no scholastics resided in the territory sought to be detached
at the time of the last scholastic census. We have not been advised of the
most recent assessed valuation in the territory, but it obviously must have
been assigned some value. We do not resolve.disputed fact issues, but if
it is correct that the scholastic population of that territory at the time of
the last scholastic census was sero, then the ratio of the number of scholastics
residing the’re to the total number of scholastics residing in the Canyon
Independent School District must be less than one-half the ratio of the
assessed valuation of the territory to the assessed valuation of the whole
district, and the territory could not be detached unless the petition to
detach is signed by a majority of the trustees of the Canyon Independent
School District as required by subparagraph (d) of section 19.261. Also,
-p. 2498
The Honorable M. L. Brockette
The Honorable.George E. Dowlen page 6 (H-555)
-see Lakeview Common School District v. County School Board of Trustees
of San Saba County, 38 S. W. 2d 598 (Tex. Civ. App. --Austin 1931, no writ).
The remaining two questions are answered by the plain language of
section 19.261 subparagraphs (c) and (g) set out above. A proposed annexa-
tion must be approved by a majority of,the board of trustees to which the
~annexation is to be made. Also
-- see section 19.332 of the Education Code
(Subchapter K). In a proper case after a hearing a Board of County School
Trustees may, but is not required to detach or annex land as sought in a
petition assuming that all legal requirements have been satisfied. The
decision of the trustees can be appealed administratively, but the final
administrative decision is reviewable in court only for an abuse of discre-
tion or a lack of substantial’evidence to support the decision made. Educa-
tion Code § 11.13: Wylie Independent School District v. Central Education
Agency, 488 S. W. 2d 166 (Tex. Civ. App. --Austin 1972. writ ref., n. r. e.).
Also see the two cases styled County Board of School Trustees of Leon
County v. Leon Independent School District, 328 S. W. 2d 928 (Tex. Civ. App.
--Waco 1959, no writ)~, and 336 S. W. 2d 809 (Tex. Civ. App. --Waco 1960,
no writ).
SUMMARY
Residents of county-line independent school districts
may not vote in elections for county school,trustees of a
county which does not have administration and control of
the school district in which they reside.
Where territory sought to be detached from an
independent school district contained no scholastics
according to the last scholastic census, it can not be
detached unless a majority of the trustees of the district
from which it is to be detached sign the petition to detach.
Any proposed annexation of territory to an independent
school district pursuant to section 19.261 of the Texas
Education Code must be approved by a majority of the
trustee& of the receiving district.
p. 2499
The Honorable M. L. Brockette
The Honorable George E. Dowlen page 7 (H-555)
A county board of school trustees, after hearing
a petition to detach and annex territory from one school
district to another may order, but is not compelled to
order, such detachment and annexation. Such an order
is reviewable administratively but the final administra-
tive decision is reviewable in court only for abuse of
discretion or’lack or substantial evidence.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
&=PROVED:
‘.
$&Jib&! tq
DAVID M.. KENDALL, First Assistant
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 2500