Case Information
*1 OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAg
AUSTIN
Honorable Ralph Brook County Attorney
Lubbaak, Toxar
twa ~huadred and twontp thaiman& an~alnstem ~934~1, end in pulation of no loae than three hundred and twenty- Independent Sahoal Diltriota, and prO?idad that euoh pstdtion mu8t be ftl~& with the Board Of Trusteea at lmst sixty (60) day8 beforo the date of m&oh sleotloa. The tern or orrloe of an elOQtt36 Tax amsensor ana aoueotor ohall be Sor two (2) years frc+m the &Ate Of eieotion. It iril also provsdea that the Board of Truetees shall appoint a Tax Ame#aor 6na Colleotar upoa reoei)t of a petition signed by twenty-fita *2 Eon. i*lph Brook - Page 2 per cent OS the qualified voter6 in
suoh Indaipeniient School LUatrlot, but pro- vlded that it petition8 requestlug both eleotlon and appointment are riled at ~~BND t&m, the potitlon whioh I8 rigned by the l.ar(gr8t number o? qualified ratrrrr shrru prevail, and the Boara of Truateea ahall follow the moae ol seleotion of a Tox keresaor and COlleotOr reqUeeteh by 8uoh petltlon.’
ATtiol* 3, Sea. 56, State Canrtlt~tion, the pareaga of anp looal or epeoial law rorbiaa %egulating the affairs al . . . 8ohool dietriotat oraattng orrlcen in . eohaol d18trIotr.a f&iii& oortab. braoket Le&ilatlon Invalid IR Biller v. El Paso Countr, 150 s. w. (2) 1000, the supream Caprt eaiac
WatwIth@taniilng the ebove aonrtitu- tioarl grOViaIon, the 00wtn reoognlnr In the ksgirlature a rather broad power to make elaasifI@atiom ror legirlatire pur- pates aa to raaot lawe for the regulation thereof, even though awh legielatlon may be applIaabJ.e only to a partioular olaaa 62, in fact affeot only the inhabitentm of a partIo&r looalitp( but auoh legislation must be intended to apply uniromly to all who lasy eoae wIthin,the alarroifiaation de- signated the Aot, and the claO8lriaation must be br@aQ enough to Inoludo a rubetantial alma end wet be baaed on cheracteriitfor dietinguiahfng suoh ol.am from lagltliuatsly othera with respeot to the pub110 purpo8e aought be ecaomp.Uehea by.the propodled In other worcle, there must be legielation. e eubstantial memn ?or the classiffaotion. Tt muet not be a acre arbitrary derioe re- aortea to for the purpose or giring what Is, In fad, a looal law the appearanee of a general law.*
, l&err the Aot in question meet the txst laid
dowa iza the hliller V, is1 Faeo case’0 (See elm Berar *3 Eon. Ralph Brook - Page 3
County v. Tynani 97 s. 3. 4-67, 128 Tsx. 223).
Note the respeotire populatione or the follow- aounties, aocording to the 1940 oeneus;
The braokets In question quite neatly pIclcc~ out Titus and Lubbook Counties ironi all the rent.
Aot, If YalId, would apply to thoee two oountiee alone. We are unable iin6 zany reaeon whateoever for so-oallsd oleseIfIoetion. Ueing shier 3ustIoe Alex- Miller v. El Paso Couatr, eupra, ander’s words *whatever difference thare la In population doea not appear to be material to the objeots sought to be aacomplishedd” br the propored legislation.
It 18 our opinfon that 6aia IIowa Bill 618 aontrarenneo Artiole 3, Sec. 56, of the State Coruti- tution, ana Ie therefore void.
Yours very truly ATTORNNX GlWBRhL OF TEXAS