The opinion
AUSTIN~.TEXAS .-.-sl- We.,_
.....^ I.~..
_..___.__
_.
August 29, 1952 .u...._.*-_^____’
Bon. Alwln E. Pape Opinion No. v-1518
County Attorney
Guadalupe County Re: Procedure to dlaaolve a
Seguln; Texaa consolidated county-line
district ‘created in the
manner rescrlbed by Ar-
Dear Sir: tiole 2i 06,’ V.C.S.
We refer to your request for an opinion from
thla office’ relative to the following aubmltted matter:
On March 2, 1940, the Clbolo,Common
School Dlatriot No. 29, then wholly within
Ouadalupe County, and the Schertz Common
County-Line School District NO. 36, then
situated part In Ouadalupe land part in
Bexar Counties, were properly consolidated
In the manner preacrlbed by Article 2806,
V.C.S. to form the Schertz-Clbolo Common
County-Line Consolidated School District
No. 29, comprising territory part in Quada-
lupe and part ‘In Bexar Counties. This
Schertz-Cibolo district has been opera’ted
aa a oonso,lldated county-line dlatrlot.
since its creation. A public’ free. school
since that time and in 1951-1952 haa been
maintained in the dlatrlct and’Its opera-
tion la contemplated for the 1952-1953
school term.
On July 9, 1952, a petition waa filed
with the County Judge of Ouadalupe County.
It reada In part aa followa:
?We the underslgned residents and
qualifled.votera of the Schertz-Clbolo Com-
mon County-Line Consolidated School Dla’-
trlct No. 29, altuated In Ouadalupe and
Bexar Counties, Texaa;do hereby respeot-
fully request that you, In connection with
the County Judge of Bexar County, Texas,
call an’electlon to be ‘held by the quall-
fled voters ‘of the Sohertz-Clbolo Common
Hon. Alwln E. Pape, page 2 (v-1518)
County-Line Consolidated School District
No. 29 for the 'purposeof determining
whether said consolidated school district
shall be dissolved, as authorized by Ar-
ticle 2815 of Vernon's Revised Civil Stat-
utes of 1925, and such supporting statutes
as contained in Title 49, entitled Educa-
tion, and that in connection with the
County Judge of Bexar County, Texas,'give
statutory notice of such election."
'Thereon appear names of sixty-one (61)’
residents and qualified voters of the Clbolo
vicinity, buttnone from the Schertz section
of the consolidated school district. No
such petition has been filed with the County
Judge.of Bexar County, but .ode may!be, con-
taining the same 61 names. No 'likepetition
has been filed by the voters of the &hertz
vicinity, nor have they~joined In any peti-:
tlon already filed or to be filed.
Questions: 1. Is there any statute which
provides for the dissolution of a county-line
consolidated school district where 'thedis-
trict operates 'a public sbhool therein?
2. Under the facts submitted and on the
quoted petition presented to the County
Judge of Guadalupe County, can this consoll-
dated county-line district be dissolved, and
the former Clbolo and Schertz districts re-
vert to their original status?
With reference to your first question, there are
only two statutes which provide for the dissolution of
consolidated school districts.
Article 2815-1, Vernon'sCivil Statutes, enacted
in 1947, provides in part as follows:
"Section 1. Any county line school
district formed by the consolidation of two
or more school districts situated 'in two or
more counties after the'~effectivedate of
this Act may be dissolved by the~~procedure
hereinafter established, whenever-the 'con-
solidated school district -falls‘to~'operate
a public free school." (Emphariri?~rl:addep.,
_' 'I,
'.
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 3 (V-1518)
This statute could have no application in the
dissolution of the Clbolo-Sohertz consolidated county-
line district, under the facts submitted, for the right
to dissolve granted In that law is limited to county-
line consolidated districts that "fail to operate a
public free school."
The other statute providing for the dissolution
of consolidated school districts Is Article 2815, V.C.S.
It reads In part as follows: ;
"(a) Such consolidated districts may,
In the same manner provided for their con-
solidation, be dissolved and the districts
included therein restored to their original
status, except that it shall not be neces-
sary to provide polling places In each dls-
trict. No election forthe dissolu-
tion of sa;d'consolldated districts shall be
held until three (3) years have elapsed after
the date of the election at which such dls-
tricts were consolidated."
An examination of the legislative history con-
cerning Articles 2815 and 2806, V.C.S. Is necessary here
to determine the meaning and scope of the phrase, ,'such
consolidated districts.
Since 1909, when Section 3 of Article VII of
the Constitution of Texas, was amended, the Legislature
has been expressly authorized to provide, by general
law, for the creation of school districts including
territory In more than one county. Simpson v. Pontotoc
Common~County Line School District No. 31, 275 S.W. 4@
-error.
(Tex. Civ. App. West, 102
Tex. 11, 111 S.W. 726 (1908).
Article 2815 has Its orlgin~in House Bill 121,
Acts 38th Leg., 3rd C.S. 1923, ch. 13, p. 169. House
Bill 121 was an amendatory law providing for the consoli-
dation of school districts and their dissolution. It
recites unchanged Section 1 of House Bill 148, Acts 36th
m3., 2nd C.S. 1919, ch. 65, p. 167,mthe first law author-
izing the creation of consolldated'school districts, and
then adds a new paragraph providing for their dissolu-
tion.
Section 1 of House Bill 148, supra, as amended
by House Bill 121 in 1923 reads In part as follows:
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 4 (v-1518)
"Section-l. When any number of con-
tiguous common school districts within this
State, deslrlng~to consolidate for school
purposes, present a petition to the judge
of the county wherein such districts are
situated, signed by twenty or a majority of
the legally qualified voters of each dls-
trlct so desiring to consolidate, the county
judge shall Issue an order for an election
to be held in each of~the common school dls-
tricts so petitioning, which election shall
be held on the same date. The county judge
shall give notloe of the date of such elec-
tions by publication of the order In some
newspaper published in the county, for
twenty days prior to the date on which such
elections are ordered, or by posting a
notice of.such elections in each of the
districts, or by both such publication and
posted notices. The Commissioners' Court of
the county in which such e~lectlonsare held
shall at Its next meeting canvass the returns
of such elections, and if the votes cast in
each and all districts show a majority In
favor of the consolidation of such common
school districts, the commlssloners' court
shall declare such common districts consoli-
dated, and districts being oontlguous ter-
ritory.
"It Is herein provided that in the same
manner as is described in Section 1, common
school districts may be consolidated with
contiguous independent sohool ~distrlc:ts,~.
. .
"It Is herein further provided that in
the same manner as is dea,cribedin Section
1, such consolidated school districtsmay be
dissolved and the distri6ts Included ~therein
restored to their original status, except
that it shall not be necessary to provide
for polling places in each of the districts
composing such consolidated districts; . e .
provided further that no election, as pro-
vided for in this section, for the dlssolu-
tion of said consolidated districts'shall
be held until three years have elapsed after
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 5 (V-1518)
the date of the election at which such dis-
tricts were consolidated."
Clearly the dissolution provisions in House
Bill 121, supra,authorised any consolidated school dis-
tricts created in the manner prescribed in Section 1
of that law to dissolve in the same manner as created
under that law. No provision in that law can be found
which would preclude the consolidation of contiguous
school districts which were situated in adjoining
counties. It Is addressed to 'any number of contiguous
. . D school districts within this State."
In 1925, the consolidation and dissolution
provisions of House Bill 121 were separated and codified
into our Revised Civil Statutes, 1925, under Articles
2806 and 2815,'to read as follows:
"Article 2806. Election to consolldate-
On the petition of twenty or a majority of
the legally qualified voters of each of sev-
eral contiguous common school districts pray-
lng~for the consolidation of such districts'
for school purposes, the county judge shall
Issue an order for an election to be held on
the same day in each such district. The
county judge shall give notice of the date
of ~such elections by publication of the order
in some newspaper published in the county for
twenty days prior to the date on which such
elections are ordered, or by posting a notice
of such elections in each of the districts,
or by both such publication and posted notices.
The commissioners court shall at its next
meeting canvass the returns of such election,
and ifsthe votes cast in each and all dis-
tricts show a majority in favor of such con-
solidation, the court shall declare such
.common school districts consolidated. Com-
mon school districts may In like manner be
consolidated with contl#uous independent
school districts, . . .
"Article 2815. Dissolution. - Such con-
solidated districts may in the same manner
provided for their consolidation, be dis-
solved and the districts included therein
restored to theiroriginal status, exeept
that it shall not be necessary to provide
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 6 (V-1518)
polling places in each district. . o . No
election for the dissolution of said consoli-
dated districts shall be held until three
years have elapsed after the date of the
election at which such districts were con-
solidated."
Thus, it is made apparent that the words "such
consolidated districts" appearing in Article 2815 mean
any consolidated district created in the manner prescribed
in Article 2806. Under Article 2815, such consolidated
districts may be dissolved in the same manner and undeli
the same procedure which authorized their creation, set
out in Article 2806, except that in the dissolution there-
of "it shall not be necessary to provide polling places
in each district."
Furthermore. Article 2815 remains unchanned.
but Article 2806 has been amended in House Bill 98, Acts
42nd Leg., R.S. 1931, ch. 106, p. 182, and House Bill
828, Acts 49th Leg,, R.S. 1945, ch. 264, p. 416. In the
1931 amendment of Article 2806, there was inserted this
provision: -
,I
. . D. provided further,
._ that
. when it
1s proposea to consollaate contiguous county-
line districts, the petitions and election
orders prescribed in this Act, shall be ad-
dressed to and issued by the Co~untyJudge
of the county having jurisdiction over the
principal school of each district and the
results of the election shall be canvassed
and declared by the Commissioners' Court of
said county.'
The tenor of this amendment is indicative that
the authority to consolidate contiguous county-line dis-
tricts already existed under those other provisions of
Article 2806 which authorize the consolidation of any
number of contiguo~uscommon or independent districts.
Its language is not such as reflects grant of power for
the first time. The amendatory provision appears to be
added merely to clarify the procedure to be followed
in the consolidation of any common or independent dis-
tricts which are co,unty-linedistricts.
The 1945 amendment of Article 2806 inserted
this provision:
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 7 (v-1518)
It
e Provided that if any such dis-
D .
trlctor districts are situated *holly in
a county other than the county nor counties
embracing any other such district or dls-
tricts the petitions and election orders
prescribed in this Act shall be addressed
to and issued by the respective County
Judges of the respective counties in which
such districts respectively lie, each
County Judge ordering the election for the
district or districts in his county, and
the Commissioners Courts of such respective
counties .shall canvass the returns and
declare the results of the election in the
district or dlstri~ctsof their respective
counties. . . ."
This added amendatory matter more clearly
constitutes simply another legislative enactment design-
ed to clarify the procedure to be folIowed in consolida-
tions of any contiguous common or independent school
districts previously authorized in the manner prescribed
in Article 2806.
But if there be any doubt as to the authority
of~contiguous districts wholly within adjoining counties
of county-line districts to consolidate in the,manner
prescribed under Article 2806, the uncertainty is re-
solved in an enactment of 1927, Section 5b of House'Bill
99, Acts 40th Leg., 1st C.S. 1927, ch. 84, pm 228,
codified as Section 5b, Article 2742b, In Vernon Civil
Statutes. Section 5b reads in part as follows:
'In the manner prescribed by 0 . . Arti-
cle 2806 . . . providing for the consolidation
of school districts by election, Common School
and Common County-line School Districts may
be consolidated, and Common School and Common
County-line School Districts may be consoli-
dated with a contiguous Independent District
in the same or in an adjoining County; pro-
vided that when the proposition is to consoll-
date districts having territory in two or
more adjoining Counties, the petitions and
election orders prescribed in Article 2806
shall be addressed to and Issued by
the County Judge of each County for and/in
behalf of each district wholly in his County
or over which his County has jurisdiction
for administrative purposes, and the County
Hon. Alwln E. Pape, page 8 (v-1518)
Commissioners' Court of each County shall
canvass the returns of the eleotion in each
district lying wholly within the County or
under its jurisdiction for administrative
purposes, and declare the results, as In
the'case of the consolidation oftdistricts
lying tiholly'withinone County; and when the
results are a? declared the consolidation
of the districts shall thereby become ef-
fective."
Section 5b, supra, like the amendments of 1931
and 1945 to Article 2806 herein discussed, we believe
may properly be regarded as legislative clarification of
procedure to be,had in the consolidation of certain kinds
of school districts, whose authority to consolidate was
earlier provided for-in Article 2806. Section 13 of
House Bill 99, supra, did not repeal Article 2806, nor Is
Section 5b of Article 2742b in conflict therewith.
In the light of the legislative history con-
cerning Articles,2806 and 2815, as herein considered, it
is our opinion that Article 2815, par. (a), V.C.S.,
authorizes the abolition of any consolidated school dls-
trict created by election in the manner prescribed by
Article 2806. Further, with respect to your first ques-
tion, the Schertz-Cibolo Common County-Line Consolidated
School District No. 29, created by the consolidation of
a common district wholly within one county with a con-
tiguous county-line district in the manner prescribed
in Article 2806, it may be'dissolved by an election~in
the manner prescribed in Article 2815, par. (a), V.C.S.
It is clear, of course, that we disagree with
an overrule herein the statement made In Attorney Gen-
eral Opinion O-5758 (1944) that Article 2815 is applicable
only to consolidated districts lying wholly within one
county.
We consider now your second question. Under the
facts submitted you state that the said Schertz-Cibolo
consolidated district was created in the manner prescribed
by Article 2806, V.C.S. Therefore, we assume that in
1940, a petition for the consolidation bearing the names
of twenty or a majority of the qualified voters of the
former Cibolo Common District was addressed to the County
Judge of Guadalupe County and that a like'petition bear-
ing the names of twenty or a majority of the'quallfied
voters of the former Schertz Common County-line School
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 9 (v-1518)
District was addressed to the County Judge of Bexar
County or Guadalupe County, whichever county had juris-
diction of that county-line district. Woodson Ipdepen-
dent School Dist. v. State, 130 S.W.2d 1038 (Tex. Civ.
A 141cb f I' H Trlmble, 145 S.W.2d
6~~'(Tex.'C~rvf"~p~ei940 ?:r% onaldson v.
State, 161 S.W.2d 324 (T;x. Civ. error ref.
w.O.m.). Compliance with Article require
that one or more petitons, signed by twenty or a major-
ity of the legally qualified voters of each of the
formerly existing districts be filed wlmhe proper
county judge or judges.
The provision in Article 2815 is that such
consolidated districts may 'in the same manner provided
for their consolidation" be.dissolved. In Consolidated
Common School Dist. No..5 v. Wood ,112 S.W,2d 231 235,
(Tex. Civ. App. 1937, error dism.j, the court conitrues
the quoted phrase as follows:
The power to dissolve the con-
solidaied district and thereby re-establish
the formerly existing component districts
is thus delegated upon the condition that
it be done,in the same manner provided for
their consolidation. In other words, the
Legislature in prescribing the several es-
sential steps by which such delegated power
should fully vest did 80 by reference to the
procedure by which the consolidation was
effected. It is not permissible, we think,
to substitute any other, unless some other
is expressly authorized, or excepted from
the 'requirementthat it be in the same man-
-ner as provided for consolidation. "0
such exception is made, which Is thatnYit
shall not be necessary to provide ppllirg
plSaes
in ea.h"distribti'
That was a wholly unneces-
sary exception; unless it was deemed by the
lawmakers that by proceeding to a dissolu-
tion 'in the same manner' would require as
many different polling places as was re-
quired in the elections for c~onsolldation.
Therefore, if there was any doubt or uncer-
tainty -as-,to w:hat was meant by the 'same
manner provided for their consolidation,'
the exception would seem to remove such
doubt and make clear the meaning. It seem
to us the general provision read In connec-
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 10 (v-1518)
tion with the single exception compels the
conclusion that the ssame manner' would re-
quire one or more petitions, signed by
twenty or a majority of the legally qua1i.r~:~
fied'voters of each of the formerly existing
districts; that the election be held at the
several polling places in each of said dis-
tricts or (under authority of the express
exheption) at one polling place, but just as
was provided in Article 2807, with reference
to the two kinds of elections held at the
same place, that separate ballot boxes and
tally sheets, etc. be provided and that the
result or results of the several elections
be separately ascertained and declared.
The last-named provision shows 'that the
Legislature did not regard election and
polling places as synonymous.
"There Is another consideration which
seems to us to favor such interpretation of
the phrase 'In the same'manner provided for
their consolidation.' The steps prescribed
for consolidation quite clearly manifest the
policy that no such consolidation shall be
affected contrary to the will (expressed in
the elections) of any one of the districts.
Of any number of districts involved in a
proposed consolidation the unanimous will of
all, ascertained by elections separately
held, is required. But if the construction
of these statutes contended for by the plain-
tiffs be correct, then a contrary policy is
manifest in the provisions of the dissolu-
tion of consolidated districts. Under that
construction it would be possible to dissolve
a consolidated district by the will of the
voters in the territory of a single district
which went into the consolidation, although
contrary to the will, if separately expressed,
of all the other districts inv.olvedIn the
consolidation. We can perceive no reason
why one policy should prevail in consolida-
tions and a contrary policy in dissolutions."
In the instant matter, the petition for a dis-
solution election filed with the County Judge of Guada-
lupe County on July 9, 1952, contains the names, you
state, of legally qualified voters residing only in the
Hon. Alwin E. Pape, page 11 (v-1518)
Cibolo area of the consolidated district. Since the
former Cibolo district was wholly located in Guadalupe
County and under the jurisdiction of that county, the
petition, insofar-as qualified voters of the Cibolo
area is concerned, appears to be in compliance with
the requirements of Article 2815 and 2806. But it is
insufficient and could not be acted 'uponby the County
Judge of Bexar County or the County Judge of Guadalupe
County for the Schertz area of consolidated district
(if the former Schertz county-line area was under the
jurisdiction of the Guadalupe County) because it does
not contain the names of twenty or a majority ofthe 1,
qualified voters residing now in the Schertz area.
Popnoe v. Corbin, 215 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. Civ. App. 1948).
Accordingly, it is our opinion that under the
laws stated and the facts submitted, a properielection
for the dissolution of the Schertz-Cibolo Common County
Line Consolidated School District No. 29 may not be had
based alone on the petition herein considered.
SUMMARY
Under Article 2815, par. (a), V.C.S.,
the Schertz-Cibolo Common County Line Con-
solidated School District No. 29 may be
dissolved by an election held in the same
manner it was consolidated, as prescribed
in the provisions of Article 2806, V.C.S.,
except that it is not necessary to provide
polling places in each former district con-
solidated.
Such Schertz-Cibolo county-line dis-
trict could not properly be dissolved in an
election called and based alone on the petl-
tion, dated July 9, 1952, it not containing
the names of twentv or a ma.-lorits
of the
legally qualified ioters from each of the
districts consolidated. Consolidated Com-
m;n School Dist:.No. 5 v. Wood, 112 S.W.
2 231 (Tex. civ. App. 1937, error dism.)
Yours very truly,
APPROVED: PRICE DANIEL
Attorney General
J. C. Davis, Jr.
County Affairs Division
E. Jacobson By Chester E. Ollison
Reviewing Assistant Assistant
Charles D. Mathews
First Assistant