Case Information
*1 June 1, 1939 Honorable F. E. Mitchell
County Attorney Callahan County 'I
Raird, T&as opinion Ho. o-778
Dear sir: Be: Election8 to consolidate districts with another consolidation election pending.
We are in receipt of your letter of May 27, 1939, in which you request the opinion of this Department upon the question based upon the ~followlng facts.
The County Judge of Callahan County upon proper petition ha8 ordered an election to determine whether or not Baird Ridependent School District and Midway Comon School District shall be consolidated. Another ~ petition is now being circulated in Clyde Independent School District and in Midmy Common School District for ths purpose of calling an election to determine whether the Midway Common School District end the Clyde Independent School District shall consolidate.
You wish to know whether the County Judge should order an election to determine whether the Clyds and Midway Districts shall consolidate upon presentation of the proper petition, in view of the fact that he has already ordered the election for the Raird-Midway consolidation. Article 2806, Revised Civil Statutes, 1925, .provides, in part, as follows:
"On the petition of twenty (20) or a majority of the legally qualified voters of each of several contiguous common school districts, or contiguous inaepandent school districts, praying for the consolidation of such districts for school pmposes, the County Judge shall issue an order for an election to be held on the same day in each such district. . . . Comaion school districts may iulike manner be consolidated with contiguous independent school districts. . ." Our Supreme Court in State, ex rel George vs. Raker, 40 S,. W. (2d) 41, held:
"TO our minds, this suit presents but one question: Did the County Board of Trustees have the Rower to defeat the right of the people to by vote, determine the question as to whether *2 Honorable F. E. Mitchell, June 1, 1939, page #2 (o-778)
the district should be incorporated by re-districting the territory involved after the election has been duly and legally or&red and advertised, and while such election was still pending? We think to state the question is to give a negative answer thereto.
"It is our opinion, that even if it be conceded that the orders of the County Board with reference to the territory of District #16 would have been in all respects legal in the absence of the pending election, still the right of the people to vote 01 incorporation, having been first lawfully invoked, would not be interfered with or defeated by the Couuty Board pending the holding of the election, and the decleration of its result8." We recognize that the foregoing case i8 not specifically in point, but the 8itW3tiOn8 are somewhat analogous. When an election has been called and the right of the people to vote upon the que8tioT.T of whether two districts shall consolidate, has attached, their right to freely express their will should not be interfered with or embarrassed by calling a second election to determine whether one of these districts should,conaolidate with a third. We find no authority in the statutes for holding both election6 at the sams time as suggested in your letter.
This~Department is of the opinion that the County Judge should not call au election based upon the Clyde-Midway petition until the electorate of the Baird Independent School District and Midway Common School District have had au opportunity to vote upon the question of whether the Baird end Midway district8 shell consolidate.
Yours very truly, ATTOHWEY -0FTEJLA6 Cecil C. Camneck =‘/ Bs
Cecil C. Camack Assistant CCC:go/.Ldw
APPROVED
S/wC.m
A- -0Fw
APPROVED OPINION CO-E
BY H. Q. B.
CHAIRMAN