Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN GROVER SELLERS ATTORNEY GENERAL
Honorable I. ‥ Vance County Attorney, Titus County Mount Pleasant, Texas
Dear Sir:
Opinion No. 0-6704 Re: Stock law elections, (1) where two separate additions requesting an elpotion to be called for the purpose of preventing dif- ferent types of 11 ivet took from run- ning at large, on the Commissioners' Court order one election to deter- mine the whole matter? (2) way publication for such an election be made in a weekly news- paper of the county far the re- quired thirty (30) days?
Responding to your request that the questions stated above as given in your letter of recant date be answered by telegram, we sent you the following wire on July 18, 1945:
"RE OPINION 0-6704. STOCK LAE ELECTIONS MAY BE LEGALLY HELD THROUGH ONE GET OF ELECTION OFFICERS CONTINUING BOTH ELECTIONS. READ AND FOLLOW SOURLOOK V. LEGATE, 201 S. W. 507, ALSO 1 YLES V. MEYER, 293 S. W. 295. ON PUBLICATION KEEELY FAIER READ AND FOL- LOW OURTHER HAM V. STADE 44 S. W. 24 739. MAY BE DONE IF HUBLISHED RELATED ELECTR OF TIME."
Provisions for local option stock law elections under the laws of this state are contained in chapters 5 and 6 of Title 121, of the revised civil statutes of Texas. Article 6930 and subsequent articles in chapter 5 contain the applicable law with reference to holding such elections to prohibit the running at large of hogs, sheep or goats, while article 6954 and following articles in chapter 6 relate to such prohibition as to horses, mules, jacks, jennets and cattle. with reference to the first class- ification, the petition for a county-wide election must be signed by "fifty freeholders" of the county; as to the
*2 Honorable L. V. Vance - page 2 second, the petition must be slyned by "one hundred (100) freeholgers." For sub-divisions of the county a different number of petitioners are recuired to inatitute the election.
Ith reference to your first question, the case of Gourlook v. Vingate (Tex. Giv. App., Beaumont) 283 S. 1. 307, contains the following statement: "The court further found that the election was 'so irreguiar in the manner of holding and conducting the same as to render the result thereof difficult, if not doubtful, of ascertainment and that same is and should be deofered illegal and void.' Just what matters and things connected with the holding of said election the court deemed 'irregular in the manner of holding and conducting the same' we are notadvised, but we think it may be fairly implied from his findings of fact (1) that one set of election officers conducted and held the two elections at the same time and place; and (2) that only one form of ballot was used for the two elections, were regarded as irregularities and formed the basis of the court's holding. It is shown that the order for the olection appointed the same person to hold each election, and that two ballotboxes were provided and used in which to deposit the ballot. The ballots voted in determining whether horses, etc., and those voted to determine whether hogs, etc., should be permitted to run at large, were deposited in separate boxes - not in any manner mixed - were oonted separately, and placed in separate return envelopes, and each identified and pointed out upon the trial. It is not contended that any occlusion erose in the matter, nor is there any cispute as to the correct tabulation and report of the vote. The ballot used, it is true, was in form the same for each olection, but the statutes, Article 7218, prescribing the form of the ballot to be used in voting to determine whether hogs, sheep, and goats should be permitted to run at large, and article 7248, prescribing the form of the ballot to be used in voting to determine whether or not horses, mules, jeoks, jennets, and cattle should be permitted to run at large, each presoribes that - "Voters desiring to prevent the animals designated in the order from running at large shall place upon their ballots the orda, "For the stock law", and the e in favor of allowing such animals to run at large shall place upon their ballots the words,
*3 Ponorable L. W. Vence - pepo 3 "Agsinat the atook law."' "The court found that theie words were on all the ballots. So the ballots conipled with the law. The undisputed feots do not support the court's holding that from the manner of holding and conducting the olection the result was difficult or doubtful of ascertainment."
It will be noted that the ertiolea of the atatute referred to in the court's opinion carry the number of the 1911 revision of the atatute; they were brought forward in the 1925 revision unchenged, as Articies 6935 and 6960, Revised Civil Statutes. In the case of Lylea v. Meyer (Tex. Civ. App., San Antonio) 293 S. 7. 295, the court said: "The provisions as to preventing hogs, sheep, and goots from running at large are contained in ohepter 5, while those applying to horses, mules, jacks, jennets, and cattle are set forth in ohepter 6 of the Stock law. In most respects they co:tein the same requirements, and in Article 6943 of Chepter 5 injury to treepassing horses, mules, jennets, jacks, and cattle are legislated against; hogs, sheep and goats not being mentioned. Article 6944 returns to the latter animals. Chepter 5 requires a petition of 20 freeholders to obtain an election in a subdivision of a county while ohepter 6 requires 80 freeholders. The two ohepters were enacted at dif erent times. Ie see no reason why the two eleotione provided for could not be combined so as to permit the freeholders to exires their desires as to all cleases of atook mentioned in the two chapters."
In view of the exoerpts above quoted, it is our opinion that your first question should be, and it is answered in the affirmative. It should be noted, however, that in the first case cited and ruoted the court took case to point out that there were two separate ballots with the ballots on the different lesues having been deposited in separate boxes, thus making clear and certain the result as to the two distinct
*4 Honorable I. II. Vanee - page 4 elections being held by the same election officials at the same time. In your case, therefore, these holding the elections should exercise care to avoid error or confusion.
With reference to your second question, the following is taken from the case of Cunningham v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 572, 44 S. N. 22759 : "Our construction of the statute under consideration (Art. 6959, R. C. S. 1925) will not permit us to sustain the contention of the state that one publication of the notice meets the demand of the law. In adopting the construction of the judicial precedente to which reference has been made, it must be held that the meaning of the statute is that the notice shall be published during at least thirty days before the day of election. Stated in a different way, the notice must be first published at least thirty days prior to the election, and contingelin each successive issue of the paper up to the day of the election. The fact that the great majority of counties in this state have no daily paper would indicate that it was not the intention of the legislature to require publication in a daily paper. A weekly paper, in our opinion, would answer the requirement of the statute, but the publication must continue in each successive issue of the paper during at least thirty days before the day of election.
We therefore have to be given the following questions, that publication in a weekly paper is sufficient, provided the same is continued for the required length of time. Articles 6954 and 6959 of the Revised Civil Statutes prescribe the terms and conditions of publication necessary, and are substantially in the identical language. The holding of the court in the Cunningham case therefore answers your question.
Trusting that the above is satisfactory, we are
Yours very truly