Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
GA-0907
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2012Background
- TexasAttorney General opinion GA-0907 (2012) answers two questions about vacancies on junior college district boards whose trustees are elected from single-member districts.
- Questions cover (1) available remedies to challenge blank occupancy of a single-member district seat and (2) whether a special election can fill a vacancy and term for the appointed/elected successor.
- First issue considers quo warranto as a possible remedy, but notes it may not be exclusive and other remedies (declaratory judgment, injunction) could apply depending on facts.
- Second issue resolves a statutory conflict between Education Code sections 130.0822 and 130.082 to determine vacancy filling method and term of office, with specific application to single-member districts.
- Conclusion states that remedies may include quo warranto, declaratory judgment, or injunction; and vacancies in single-member districts must be filled by appointment by remaining board members, with appointed or elected successors serving until duly qualified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remedies to determine vacancy occupancy | Lucio seeks quo warranto as exclusive remedy | Attorney General notes multiple remedies may apply depending on facts | Remedies may include quo warranto, declaratory judgment, or injunction |
| Filling vacancies in single-member districts | Conflict between §§ 130.0822 and 130.082; seek special election | Specific provision governs; consider irreconcilable conflict | Vacancies in single-member districts must be filled by appointment by remaining board members |
| Term of office for appointees/elected successors | Unclear duration; Code provisions conflict | Appointed person serves unexpired term; elections fill remaining term per constitutional directive |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamman v. Hayes, 391 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1965) (quo warranto not shown exclusive remedy; public office occupancy)
- Williams v. Castleman, 247 S.W. 263 (Tex. 1922) (historical basis for quo warranto limitations)
- Robinson et al. v. Neeley et al., 192 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006) (discusses non-exclusive nature of remedies for public office occupancy)
- Tovar v. Bd. of Trs. of Somerset Indep. Sch. Dist., 994 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1999) (declaratory judgment possible for vacancy by residency)
- Garcia v. Angelini, 412 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Civ. App.-Eastland 1967) (injunction to restrain trustees in vacancy disputes; quo warranto not exclusive)
- Bradley v. State ex rei. White, 990 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. 1999) (specific vs general statutory provisions; in pari materia)
- Lewis v. Drake, 641 S.W.2d 392 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1982) (quo warranto described as protects public office)