MEMORANDUM REGARDING LEGAL OPINION

I have reviewed the legal opinion issued by the Texas State Legal Advisor
and he is correct that the Constitution does not address the process for
establishing/creating new districts.
I however disagree that the issue in Texas was whether or not it was
Constitutional to create a new district but rather the analysis should have been in
terms of the constitutionality of splitting an existing district.
HISTORY
The wrong question was addressed at the State Board of Texas, the state did
not create a new district, it divided an existing district. A new district would be
creating a district in Alaska or Montana, where we currently have no districts. In
Texas, the state is already divided into existing districts, therefore one needs to
divide an existing district to form another district. This issue of dividing existing
districts is exactly what the Article VI, Section 6 amendment to the Constitution in
2011 addressed. One must review the history of the amendment to understand why
it was passed. In 2010, a disgruntled member of District 8 in Houston went straight
to a National Board meeting and convinced friends on the Board to consider a
motion to split the Houston district. It is interesting to note that this person did not
bring the issue to the District level or State level first before taking it to National.
1

The Board voted to split the Houston district and we now have two districts in the
same city, District VII and District XVIII. After the action was taken, several
members of the Board worried that their districts in Texas cities may be next, i.e.
San Antonio. The San Antonio people then proposed the 2011 amendment to the
Constitution to prevent the splitting of Districts. It passed in the Cincinnati
convention in 2011. The current ruling by our counsel will open the doors again to
this problem and I urge our National office to revisit this issue with counsel and
uphold the constitution and the intent of the National Assembly in passing the
amendment.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
A review of The Lulac Constitution, 2012 Edition, Article VI, Section 6 (2)
i-iii. Page 18-19 states " Districts shall be strictly defined and maintained within
the geographic boundaries, e.g. municipalities and/or surrounding; I I) all new
local councils formed within the geographic boundaries of existing Districts may
not break away from those Districts ". Considering the first sentence, Districts in
Texas ARE strictly defined and are maintained. We have a map of Texas defining
our Districts that has been maintained for over 50 years. Additionally, the Councils
under consideration in Big Springs, were new Councils organized within the
existing District. These new Councils just wanted their own separate District. It is
clear that these were new councils formed within a District and "may NOT break
2

away from the existing District," per the Constitution. The opinion rendered by the
State legal adviser considered this issue under the theory that the state created a
new District, when in fact the issue should have been considered under the Article
VI, Section 6 of the Constitution which mandates against splitting existing
Districts. This question is strictly addressed by this amendment to the Constitution
and should be strictly enforced and the actions of the State in granting permission
to form an additional District should be overturned and denied.