Judges: JIM MATTOX, Attorney General of Texas
Filed Date: 9/10/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Honorable John E. Chamberlain Hall County Attorney P.O. Box 699 Memphis, Texas 79245
Re: Whether Childress County is authorized to annex a portion of the Estelline School District which lies in Hall County
Dear Mr. Chamberlain:
You ask whether section 19.021 of the Texas Education Code authorizes one county to annex an entire county-line school district without the consent of the other county affected. You indicate that the Childress County Commissioners Court annexed the entire Estelline Independent School District to the Childress Independent School District without the consent of the Hall County Commissioners Court. Approximately 75% of the Estelline School District is located within Hall County. You assert that article 19.021 does not authorize Childress County to take action affecting property lying in another county without the consent or action of the other county.
Section 19.021 of the Texas Education Code provides, in part:
(a) The commissioners court of any county may create enlarged districts by annexing one or more common school districts or one or more independent school districts having less than 250 students in membership on the last day of the preceding school year to an independent school district having 150 or more students in membership on the last day of the preceding school year.
The question at hand is not simply whether section 19.021 expressly or impliedly requires the consent of both counties where more than one county is affected. The dispositive issue is whether section 19.021 authorizes one county to take action outside of its boundaries. If it does not, the other county's concurrent action over territory within its boundaries is essential.
Counties hold only those powers granted expressly or by necessary implication in the Texas Constitution and statutes. Canales v. Laughlin,
No reported cases interpret section 19.021. Several cases, however, interpret the statutes which preceded section 19.021. In Foulks v. China Spring Independent School District,
The statutory language at issue in Foulks referred to the power of school trustees "in each organized county" to annex school districts with less than 250 students to another district. Section 19.021 refers to "any" county rather than to "each" county. It has been suggested that this change was intended to remove any requirement that both counties must act in concert. However, a minor change in phrasing made when the various civil statutes relating to one topic are consolidated into one code is not presumed to indicate a change in meaning. See Sutherland: Statutory Construction, § 28.10 (4th ed. 1985). Accordingly, the reasoning in Foulks also applies to section 19.021. As indicated, counties hold only those powers granted expressly or by necessary implication in the Texas Constitution and statutes. Section 19.021 does not expressly authorize annexation of a school district which lies within another county; it merely authorizes annexation of a district with less than 250 students without a petition of the district's registered voters. The court in Foulks suggested that the use of "each" county indicated that the provision may have been intended to apply only to school districts located within the same county.
Texas case law suggests that the legislature cannot grant counties power to act unilaterally outside their boundaries without constitutional amendment. See Tex. Const. art.
Your question, however, does not require reliance on whether the legislature may authorize one county to take unilateral action over territory lying within another county without running afoul of article
Very truly yours,
Jim Mattox Attorney General of Texas
Jack Hightower First Assistant Attorney General
Mary Keller Executive Assistant Attorney General
Rick Gilpin Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Jennifer Riggs Assistant Attorney General
Doughty v. Maxwell , 376 U.S. 202 ( 1964 )
Canales v. Laughlin , 147 Tex. 169 ( 1948 )
Ellis v. Hanks , 478 S.W.2d 172 ( 1972 )
Burke v. Hutcheson , 537 S.W.2d 312 ( 1976 )
LORENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. Rosenthal Com. Sch. Dist. , 421 S.W.2d 491 ( 1967 )
Neill v. Cook , 365 S.W.2d 824 ( 1963 )
Cty. Sch. Trustees v. Harral Cty. L.I. , 95 S.W.2d 204 ( 1936 )