In yoin letter of A&i1 13, 1942, you outline the following facts:

"In a School Trustee election held in a collppo~l school district of this comty on the first Saturday In April, the three persons holding the election were women, two of whom were wives,~,of teachers in the school, and the other the wife~of the janitor inthe scheo$. done of the wives of e teacher has served as substitute t&tkU in the school~for a:period of eleven weeks during this school term.

Yhere is no question as to the appointment of tPjese women to hold the election'n& is there any question as to their not being qualified voters of the district, thequestion merely being based upon the close ccmnections which they have with those operdkii&aiid conducting the ef?,$i!q of the school district." .._

You request our opinion as 'UYwhether~~the elictio6 so held was a valid~one. ,I; “ad:. ; _ :, Article 2746, Revise&Ci~il Statutes, praviaefy’- ,_ ,:. i:

5aid trus*e$Y&jJ'appoint three (3) p&ons, qualified v&ers of the dis~~~f,i:ljfio~:shallhold. su~hTe+++ and make returns thereof to &i~iii-t$~$ees within fivs r!jy"M@ after such election, and &id'~persons 13hallreceivCd txmpeneatioa foe their services the sum of One Doller ($1) each, to be Pd& out of the local funds of the school district where the election was held. . . If, at the time ana place for hol&ing such election, any or all of the persons so appointed to'hold such election are'absent 07 refuse to act, thenthe electors present my select,of their number a person or parsons to act in the place of those absent or refasing to act." *2 Hcolorable Leo Resnell, Page 2 (O-4546) ”

The above statute does not aisqdify any of these persons es ‘election of ficeik . We refer to Article 2940, Revised Civil Statutes, which sets out certain'disqualifications for election judges, clerks and supervisors. If that statute applies to cosunon school district electious, a ToFt which'we do not find it necessary to decide, it would not render this election void. Certelnly it would not disqualify the two aga@t.whom the only question raised is that their husbands are $eachers in the school. Whether the substitute teacher,is such an officer as would disqualify her under Art$cle'29&0 is still another point unnecessary to determine.

The case.of Miller v. Tucker, llg S.'W. (2) 92, involved the contest of ~a local option election. We quote therefrom:

"Appellees' contentiti that the election was rendered Invalid because J. Roy Lawson, the presiding off&r, we8 at the ssme the mayor of lkvten is also without merit. There was no showing or cont6ntlon that the presence of Mr. Lswso? as prdaing ,offi+.in any way lmprope~,~.affected the result of the elect.ign.'~F&i objection vas.maae~to Mr. Lawson serving. The ele&i&&s~f+rly and honestly h&d and, so far & shown by the record; the~votes were correctly counted and returns accurately made. Article 2940, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St., is directory only and an el&ian is not vitiated by the fact that the electi& $@&&ct,ti~:~xiT&~~ c&r tif;,k&hority did not possess the required qualifications in the absence of a showing of fraud or misconduct. Hill v. Sm1thville Independent School Dist., Tex. Civ; ASP. 239 S-W. 987; Gayle v.'~ Alexander, Tti. Civ. App. 75 S. W. (2) 706."

Supporting the same principle we cite: Bengetter v. Msrskell, 70 S. W. (2) 285; Geyle v:Alexander 75 S. W. (2) 706; Deaver v. State, ex rel. ~'ipp, 66 s. w. 256.

In our opinion the,el&ion ia not invalid uuder the cirotrmstances which you relate.

Yours very truly APPRovm APR. 24, 1942

s/ GROVER - ATl'CRHEY6ZNERALOFTEXAS FlICST ASSISl!AWT s/ Glenn R. ‘$ewis

ATTORWRY -

APpF@VEDoPINIONcGMrrTEE

BP B. w. B. '. By Glenn R. Lewis

CHAIRWAR

Assistant GRL:E/ law