Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1970 )


Menu:
  •                             November 5, 1970
    Ronorable Burton S. Burks
    County Attorney, Hood County
    Granbury, Texas 76048
    Opinion NO. !I-724
    Re :   Refund of monies paid under
    Article 666-32 l/2 (b) Vernon's
    Penal Code, for calling of
    Dear Mr. Burks:                     local option election.
    You have requested an opinion from this office regard-
    ing whether monies paid under Article 666-32 l/2 (b), Vernon's
    Penal Code, by a private individual for calling a local option
    election,must be refunded to this individual when the county
    has not had a local option election for several years prior
    to the recent election in question.
    Article 666-32 l/2, Vernon's Penal Code is set out
    in full as follows:
    "Art. 666-32 l/2.    Expense of holding elections
    (a) The expense of holding any local
    option election authorized by the Texas
    Liquor Control Act in any county, justice
    precinct or incorporated city or town shall
    be paid by the county, but the expense to
    the county shall be limited to the holding
    of one election in each of the above poli-
    tical subdivisions within a one-year period
    where the intent of the electron 1s to le-
    galize the sale of alcoholic beverages, and
    the expense to the county shall be limited
    to the holding of one election in each of
    the aforesaid political subdivisions within
    a one-year period where the intent of the
    electron is to gohibit  the sale of alco-
    holic beverages. All other local option
    electlons, excepting the aforementioned
    -3502-
    Honorable Burton S. Burks, Page 2 (M-724)
    as prescribed       Subsection;
    in ..,,-
    __._-,_,__               (b) of this
    _I-..-.
    section as follows:
    (b) When the application for an
    election in a county, justice precinct
    or incorporated city or town is presented,
    the county clerk at the time and before
    the issuance of any petition for a local
    option election s!lall require a deposit
    in the form of a cashier's check in the
    aggregate amount of twenty-five cents
    per voter listed on the current list of
    registered voters as residing in the
    county, justice precinct or incorporated
    city or town for which the election is
    sought. The money so received shall be
    deposited in the county's general fund,
    and no refund shall be made to the appli-
    cants regardless of whether the petition
    is returned to the county clerk or t!lc
    election is ordered. When there is
    presented to the county clerk an appli-
    cation which
    ---    must -,__.-,
    .._-   be accompanied by a
    deposit, the county clerk shall not
    Esza'    petition to the applicants un-
    less and until the deposit is made, and
    a county clerk who issues a petition
    upon sucll an application without first
    receiving the deposit is guilty of a
    misdemeanor and shall be fined not less
    than two hundred dollars nor more than
    five hundred dollars, or imprisoned in
    the county jail for not more than 30
    days, or both fined and imprisoned."
    (Emphasis added.)
    The 60th Legislature passed and the Governor approved
    Senate Bill No. 58 (Acts 60th Leg., R.S. 1967, Ch. 723, p. 1858),
    which was entitled Election Code Revision; and in this lencthy
    -3503-
    ,    -
    Honorable Burton S. Burks, Page 3 (E-1-734)
    bill, as Section 12 thereof, the Texas Liquor Control Act was
    amended by adding a new section codified as Article 666-32 l/2,
    Vernon's Penal Code, set out above. The caption of Senate
    Bill No. 58 refers to this section in the following language:
    "* * * . . .and adding Section 32 l/2,
    Article I, Texas Liquor Control Act,
    relating to payment for the expense of
    holding such elections and providing
    a penalty for issuance of a petition
    for an election under certain circum-
    stances: * * * *n
    The cardinal rules of statutory construction appli-
    cable here require that when a statute is susceptible of more
    than one construction it will be interpreted as to best secure
    the benefit intended: will best effect the leqislative intent
    and so that it will be constitutional and valid. Newsom v.
    State, 
    372 S.W.2d 681
    (Tex. Crim. 1963). Once the legislative
    intent is ascertained, it should be given effect, even though
    the literal meaning of the words used therein is not followed.
    Wood v. State, 
    133 Tex. 110
    , 
    126 S.W.2d 4
    (1939), 
    121 A.L.R. 931
    .
    If Article 666-32 l/2 (b), Vernon's Penal Code, were
    to be interpreted as compelling a deposit to be made with the
    county clerk with every application for a local option election,
    regardless of whether such a local option election has been
    held in the immediate prior one-year period, such an inter-
    pretation would defeat the exception underlined in paragraph (a)
    of the Act above, which places the expense of the local option
    election on the county if no such election had occurred in the
    prior one-year period. This construction would in effect change
    this statute into an "application fee" statute, and because of
    the failure to adequately describe it as such in the caption
    of the legislative act in which it was included, that construc-
    tion would render it invalid, Art. III, Sec. 35, Constitution
    of Texas.
    The more appropriate and proper construction of this
    statute is that the underlined portions of paragraph (a) of
    the statute, as set out above, clearly mean that if there has
    been no local option election in the preceeding one-year period,
    the expense of the election is that of the county and only if
    there has been such an election in the prior one-year period,
    -3504-
    Honorable Burton S. Burks, Page 4 (M-724)
    in that political subdivision, then the paragraph (b) require-
    ment for a deposit becomes mandatory.  The clause underlined
    in paragraph (b) above recognizes that there are applications
    which must be accompanied by a deposit and by implication
    recognizes that there are applications which do not require
    such deposits.
    Based on the foregoing analysis, it is our opinion
    that the private individual calling for a local option election
    in a political subdivision that has not had such an election in
    the preceeding one-year period should not have been required
    to make a deposit with the county clerk and that such deposit
    should be refunded by the county clerk to the payor.
    s rJ I? PI A
    ------.-,--    R   Y
    A deposit made with the county clerk
    pursuant to Article 666-32 l/2 (h), Vernon's
    Penal Code, with an application for a "local
    option election" in a county which has not
    had such an election in the preceedinq one-
    year period, should be refunded to the
    depositor.             ';
    Very truly yours,
    Prepared by Robert Giddings
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED
    OPINION COMXTTEC
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
    Jay Floyd
    John Reeves
    Rex White
    Fisher Tyler
    MEADE F. GRIFFIN
    Staff Legal Assistant
    ALFRED WALKER
    Executive Assistant
    NOLA WHITE
    First Assistant
    -3505-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-724

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1970

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017