Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
-c.yIla --
Bonorabl~ Bwl Ilrittaln County Auditor
San ratriolo u6wstr
glnton, Temr " /---!A tlona appear to h6~e been obthaed in “‘l’&ayf& an k ls , tbof were not taken Mml wmwt, th8t aa a igdlrldual petltlon, but in 8ereral oopfw, ~: ,\ to the varlou8 wrte of the oamty, aab when filed the ecweqzil oqplss were attaohed together.
*A further lrrsgularlty, emldent on the faoe ot tihe ln6txuwat, lo the faot that mmy of th8 sig- natures. such a8 hut3tmnd ana wife, 8on or dawhtec, bar the handwriting of only one xmnber of the fklUllP. The number of signer8 on the pstitlone l# lneuffiolent to oonstltute 10 per oent of the quali- rlsa property taxpaying toter8 unlaeo irrsgu- rarity in algnaturerr just,mentloned is oonuldsred *2 5 ,Bmorable Burl Brlttaln, page #a
I number O? slgner8, for Iu IIU& In~tanaes the as valid. It appears that there we8 a design
or scheme used In order to get the ausrlolent pereon olroulatlng the p8tltlon reque8tsd the slmer to align the name8 of other member8 or thm rtidms.~ The following que8tlona hare arisen out ot the above rtnte of raatirr, and upon which OUT opinion is requeatedr I 1. “Whether petitions oiroulated ln reyeral
parts, rather than as a uult, is a valid petition, oven though It was attached together at the time i
i 2. “(6) Whether a petition showing dealgn, rraud a sohems on it8 faOe, bearfng forged au6 uaauthor- ized elg?laturee Is void?” *(b) Whether the signers mm and the unauthor- I ized n-8 ebould be ellmlnated In counting the num- F- ber neoesnarp for 10 per oent, whether un- & authorized nemes only should ell&Ina ted?”
3. Whether algnere may wIthdraw their nauwu after the l;rsltitlon has been rllea, aither by strlk- ine off their rumis or riling supplementary peti- tIoa asking t&t their name8 be w5.thdrawn from the i. De tit Ion?”
In anewer to your flrstqusotlon, we advlre that in r opinion petitIons olroulated In several parts other than F: !f~ a unit, will oonstltute the baels of e valid patltlon In
B event that eaoh or the several pirta are headed 4th sub- antially the same matter,all ho? whIoh petition for 6n elso- on on tha .same or ldentloal aueatlon. DrOYided they am 63, the Court of Clvll Apyeala mw l-0. Rudd, es 24 mild, with rerarence to d queetlon 8Imller to that submitted ia the instant g&tie, the t a petition ‘biroulated in sight Darts aud attaohed at the tine of filing oonstltuted, but one DWtion. The same aubjeot matter appearing in the heading ’ eFioh of the eight parts being the same nnd aubaequently riled at the same time wee h6ld euiilolent to authorize the Qourt to make the neoesearp orders pursuant thereto.
Honorable Burl Brlttaln, paae #S
With roierenoe to'your question (a) under 2, we think that to stata the qua8tlOa la to anmar it, tar the meson that the law oontemplate8 that a4 petltlon to r0nn the baa18 of a legal eleotlon rhall genuine in every raepeot, and that ii the authority to whom said petition la dlraotad datsnnlnsrr it to be a rcheme a fraud, or that It beam rorged and unauthorlsed signa turer , 8uoh de- termluatlon la not subjaot to oollateral attaok. Thlr presents more a question or faot than or law, but it 8ecma elanantary that if the petition shone deei-, fraud or eoheme and bears fortpd and unauthorlaed slgnaturse, it ia void ipso faoto.
In reply to question (b) of 2, wa advise that we know of no &thorlty exlating in the Conmla8lonere~ Court to ellml- nate irom a patition genuine slgwaturea cxf qualiiled property taxpaying voter8 ror any purpose, and ow think that the CommIa- rlonars' Court rrould ba aotIng olaerlp wlthln its dI8oretlon in ellxlnatlng unauthorized nam88 and elgnaturee irom any petition presented to it tar eotlon thereon. Where the oftioar with whom It has been filed ha8 authority to hear and datermIne it8 luiflola~y and validity, his deoif~lon thereon la rlnal unlearn 8uoh dkolslon bae been fraudulent Or corruptly nmde pmoured, Or tinleas ho has been ullty of an abuse ot dlacretlon. 906 20 Corpus ilurla, 91; a 80 State vs. Orave8, 107 lf. E. 1018. It mat be~‘assumad that tha authority to whom apetition~lr
~~diraoted'will not abuse their discretion nor reaoha deolalon %predloated upon fraud, or k&at auoh authority ha8 any desire $0 eliminate from a petition elgnaturee of quatied electors
k%ltlmatsly plaued thereon*
We are or the oplnlon that the algners of a ~patItlOn 8ay withdraw their uamea after the petition has been flled at Uw time before offioial aotlon thereon has been taloan, and that the ?mnner,oi aoaotilpllshIng such withdrawal raqulras no Prtloular foncallty. In the aase of Stats vs. F&apart, I.22 1. E. 99, it was stated that -
WUuleas provided othcrwlse by statute, olao- tors v&o hav& xkgned petition my withdraw their nemee berore offlola aation has bean taken thereon."
Ionorable Burl Brittain, pee k
lJI0 to staller effect is the case of Tmtten vs. Banovor, L2 Ghia C3tetc, 215; 20 Corpus Twi8, 95, wherein it wu8 mid :
*If as a result of tho withdrawal the petl- tion fails to aontaln e mquiSlte number of nen188 It should be di8cis8'30."
Trusting that the foragoiag sattsfeatorilp answWs you! 1nqulry, we are _
CECLS
.
APPROVEDDEC 18, 1940 A,