History
  • No items yet
midpage
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
O-2329
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 1940
|
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 I_ OFFlCE OFTHEAmORNEY--GENERALOFTEXAS

AUSTiN

Honorable R. C. Wilson ',a: '.

county Aualtor

Gray County

FaRpa, Terns

A Dear sir:

requ

Your reoent ion OS this de- atat partmf& on the above been reoeivd. ureau and a park.* *s Amotatsti -Civil Stat- e Bate OS pamsage 0r issionera Oourf8 in all Nmn- ulation at not less than tweaty- arty (%%,050) and not more thoumad (%3,000),~ ~aooording ealng Federal Census shall nd autb0rify to provi&e r0r faoillt$es antl such tlmmslal aid af8 tie satd ComRlasioneP~ eourta may lle%a~mboess~ry to Ped- era1 or stats governwmnt agenolee and bureaus having adtivftiee or mintmining p8?ojeots wlth- f.n the bounty 5.n whiah the rsald Cormisaione~s iietrr 1939, 46th &ar&, H. B. court is louated. #PSO, % 1.r

Roonorable Rv C+ Wil'aoh, page 2 .' tion

be enaots8;:p~o~idO4,.~that.,nothing hereinoon- tained:ehdU.be‘,aolwtrgeb.,tO.prOh~bit:~the;~legls- . . . "lature' ;bonr~~paasing-.spea~~l;la*rs, fOr :thepre- servatica~.o~~ganrs anil.fleh.Of this State in ': certain l.OoaUties.~~-. .~:' :~ + : ~- .I',-'.:- .; :: ',~ ~. 'i' ,, ..,,_ ~, ..:.: .~,.~ 739;. ~.heids ?&is: &ie.of, ~Saith~,~s~i,Sta~& &.m,ed in eireot.'.t~~.'.if'~~ub~tantiel~reason roi-'olassifgl&g muui- cipalities by~,~pdLatioa;appeara, suuh ~Olaa~ifioatlon and legislation apg~ioable~to~snOh~~Ol~s8fficatfon legenerally sustained..,'~Ro~ever, the constitutional prohibition ageinst ,%peciaL lati~.Oannot be:.e%adOd by maldng laws-~applioabls to a pretend& ~Olass, and-that a statute olassifying muniOi-. palit~es~~by~populatio~-~-ia~.:~~p~Oirt~~~.~-it.th~ uotafford,a fa~~basis,:-ior~,Ollassiiioation; populatfon~doea Li:the.statute nerelg 'dea$gnatea-a sfnglsmania~~~3ity.~er~~tha guise or classifging:bp~pogulation;, and that a valid alasaification of municipalities by population must not exOh.lde other muuiaipalltie~from enteriug~.sue~h~OlasS~~~~Oat~On,~~O~ attain- lug the epecified .populationti i. ,: ;' '. .....; ~,:.

ionora& R. c; Wlson, page'3

.n*in so'far as.the courta which u&z- take to define the basis uRon which the

~blasslficntion nust rest how that the Legis-

lature cannot, by a pretended classification,

e7ade a.consiLtuti0na.l restrictioa, we fully

ooncur with them. Rut ii" they hold ,that a

olassificatioa which does not manifest a pur-

pose to evade the ConstLtution_is not~suffi-

,oient to support a statute as a.general law

merely because, in the co*urt's opinion, the

olasslfioation is unreasonable, we are not

prepared to,concur. To what class or classes

of persons or things It should ep-~ly Is, as

-a general~rule, a legislative question. When

the intent of the Legislature is clear, the

policy of the law is--a matter which Oo&s not

conaern the courts.'

- -Xf.the classiflcation~of titles or couu- ;ties:is based on population, whether an act is

regarded as-special anii'ichether its operatio,n

is uniform throughout the State, depena upon

whether popupulation affords a fatr basis fox

the classification with reference to the mat-

ters to which it relates, and whether the re-

sult it accomplishes Is in fact the real clas-

sirication u?on that basis, and not a aesignns-

tion of a single city or county to which alone

Yt shall agplg; under the guise of suoh olss-

sifioatlon. parker-Washington County v. Kansas

City; 73 Ken. 722, 85 F. 781." (Also see the

oases of 3x purte Sizemore, 8 3% (2d) 134* and

Randolph v. State, 38 SYJ 2d 484). 'The"%se of,Hexar County vi'Tynan, et al, 97 SW _ _

26 467; holds in effect that the LegZslature may on e pro-

per end reasonable olassfflcation enact a general law which,

at the tLne of f.ts enactment, is applicable to only one

oounty, provide& the application is not so inflexibly fixed

as to prevent It ever becoming applicable to other countfes

md that the Legislature mey~cl3s3ify counties on basis of

population tor purposes of fixins compensation of county

and precinct officers, but such OlaSSifiC3tiOA must be based

.on real distinction and must not bo sn arbitrary device to

give what is in substance a local or special law, the form

of a general la;v. And the case furthm holds thst the courts

in determi&n2,r~hathor a Law is public, ganerti, Spociel Or

. .

hnorable R..C. Wilson, page 4

. .

looal, Will look to the substance snd practicgl operation‘~

rather than t0 its title, SO?%, phraseology, sinae other-

.v&so a prohibition OS the fundmental lari against speoial

legislation wild be nugatory; ana t0 jirstffg pmiq 0110‘ county in a very linited and restricted classification by.

'the Legislature,~there nu.st be soze reasonable relation

bdsieen the situation of the counties classified and pur-

posos~ and objectsto be attained, au& classitication can-

not be cdoptsd~arbitrcrily on a ground v&ich has no founda-

tion in differonce of situat.Zon or circ~xzstsncss 0S'countiss

placed in.different classes. The act reducing salaries of

officers in counties of'over tvm Rundred and ninety thousand

end less than three hundred and ten thousand population vxas

held unreasonable hnd arbitrary in its clossifdkation and

void as a special law.

:

Wi Quote fro= the above mentio~ed,opinion aa,fol- lo=: ~. ,. : ., .: . aThe rule is that so clakification can-

.x i- not.be adopted arbitrarily upon a gro~und which has no Soundation ind5Sforonce of situation ~.::~r.;l~i:,~:; ' or circumtances of the nunicipalitles placed .5.n the different classes. There ml5t be SOi9D

reasonable relation between the situation of

nuuicipalities classified in the 3urgose and

tie object to be attained. There must be sane-. ..

thing..,. which in sop1e reasonable dqree ac-

counts for the division into classes.**

Article CZilb-Z,'supra,'applies only~to counties having e population of not les s than 22,050 and not mre

than 23,000, according to the last preceding redera census:

The object and purpose of the statute under consideration IS

to pernit ccxxissioners~ court of the counties co* xithin

the above designated population brackets to provide for

facilities znd such financial aid as the said oozxissioners*

cotit rxiy deeia necessary to Federal or state governsxent

agencies and bureaus having sctivities Or riaintaining pro-

jects within the oountg in which the fmnziissioners' Court

Fs locztted, h natural class, xould include al.1 the CountieS in "de state. The above m3ntiomd statute authorizes the court in counties having a population of not

qp&ssioners’

less than 22,050 and not zaore than 23,000 the additional

p&or and authority ra set out in the statute. Ths number

Rotiorab1e.R; C. Wilson, Rage 5

. .

of inhabitants residing within the ~county, alone, c&not

serve in my reaSon&bh or natural cmner to indicate the

necessity or desirability of Remitting such county through

its coimlssioners* court to exercise the power and authority

8s provided in reticle 2351b-2. Ue think that the above

classification is a mre designation vihich is no classifica-

tion at all, but,.on the contrary, as inverted and discrim.i'-

natory as the law considered by the Supreme Court in the case

of Rexar county vs.~ Tynan, supra. .' ,~ ‘. .

AS above 'stated we have'here '& -tatice of arbl-

trary designatioa, rather than classification. The above

quoted statute.attenpts to regulate the afSa$rs of those

omutles cozuing within the~above designated Ropulstion brack-

ets in a'mamer violative of Article ITI, Section ,56, of the

State Constitution. Thtii last r,entioned section of the Con-

stitution, is designed, in part, to insure that the system

of comty~gmermeot shall .be as unifom as is possible. It

is intended to.prsvent then passage of laws which discrinlnatc ' betvveen the counties of this state:without adequate am.l sub-

stantial difference in the qha,ractsristics of the individual

_ cotities indicative, rationslxy, of the necessity for,the'

discriminationi

In view of the foregoi=, you arerespectfully advised that It is the opinLon of thin deRart:zmt that the

law under consideration clearly violates the provisions of

mtfcle III, Section 56, of the State Cocstitutlon and its

miifest spirit and~purpxe, and it is therefore UUCOn6titu- .

tional and void..

Trustin that the foregoing fully answers your in- quiry, we remin

Yours very truly d?T?o;rn GIxERhL OF Tzxtss * s.9 : jm APP OVEDMAY 23, 1940

J5LA-uz.Ld

Case Details

Case Name: Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Court Name: Texas Attorney General Reports
Date Published: Jul 2, 1940
Docket Number: O-2329
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Att'y Gen.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.