Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
April 17, 1939 Honorable Robert J. Allen
Lubbook County
Labbook, Temm
.: . .
we be& to aokno
or March 25, LOS9
thla laepartlncnt
coaposed or 0
ronsahooldlrr
gvgaril the&r pemea on -the Ori&nal p&itiO~ shoal& be m- eogn&ed by then, or whether thQr ehotid a;erely consider the original elgne% petition to abollsh*~the Rural High Sohool Dietriot,
Hon. Robert J. Allen, April 17, 1939, Page 2
"Provided that the county school trustees shall have the authority to abolish a rural h&h sohool dlstrlat on a petition signed by a majority of the voters of eaoh elementary dlstrlct composing the rural high school dls- trict and when such district has been abollsh- ed the elementary districts shall automatically revert back to their original status, with the exoeption that In the event there are any out- the eai% rural standing indabtdneaae~ agaInat soheol dirtriot eaoh elwntary dietriot shall amnuw its proportional part of the %abtr.*
1t is elear that ua%er iii0 abate statute the oounti sohool trustees have of themselves a0 power to. unless they are rhit abolish a rural high sohool aimi0t authorize% $o %o so bJI "'a petItIon signed by a majority. or tha voters of eaoh elementa- diltriot oo@@osing the
- rural sigh sohool distdot." The ~OldS8iOIl di Appal.8
0r Texas has ad 8oaatraed a dmllar atatate in the oaae .
MesauIte Independent Sohool Dlstrlot v. Gross; 67 8.
(24 j 242. we ;Inate rrom that opinion: -
*The plain words of the statute ltits the'potential jarisdlotlon oi.the sohqol boar%' to Instanoes where It Is preeenti%wIth~the statatoe-petition. If the statatory petltlqn $6 absent, the jarlsdlotion of the boar% Is utterly laokIng. -In other words, unless an% 'ontil-the boar% Is presented with the titit&-, tory petition, it has no jurIs%Iatlon in the 1 premiae8.*
.ArtIole 2?62a, R. 0. a., hat3 5e~aieUlr rooeiv- ju%loIal sanotloh by the court. There ean,_theeFam, 0% no question as to the valldlty of the prooe%un tnere- be in outlined whloh makes petitions signed by a majorltr 0r the qaalIrIa% voters 0r eaoh or the oomponent %lstrIots all essential prerequisite before whIoh Zhe boar% of oountr sohool trustees oamot sot to abolIsh.ruoh a'rural hi& ' sohool district.
We have been unable to find any-Texas author- ities %Ireotly in point on the. queetign oi whether a.
signer of a petition may subsequentlp revoke his aot In so signing the petltlon. The authorI8iee OQ this qaes- tIon.In other jurIs%lotIons dare not unlform.but the
\ *3 Hon, Robert J. Allen, April 17, 1939, Page 3
doaided weight of authority follows the rule 'thatone who signs a petition may.subsequently revoke his signa- ture prior to the time that the petition haa been aoted UpOIl.
‘We quote from 15 Corpus JurIs at p. 402: "AXI elector may legally sign two or more non-oompeting petitions and he aay withdraw his algrutare by l written oommanloation, wlth- oat appear* ln.p8reon. T h e withdrawal may . be ma& after the 4atdfIxdl for hparlng and . . . beox- rinal aotlonr~ state r. Faniah, 42 noxk- -.
tapa 26, lS4-Pao. 297.
Quot&'iropl SS Corpar JIlris at p. '6262 :. *A &ItIoner for a.loaal option petition
nny.frMhdraw hi8 nuta rr0m ths petition at ady flab3 before the pstitloa has been aoted apon.* cmmr v. Wewto~, lb4 Kentaokf 499, 167 s.W. 716.
The Saprege aoart.or wonta~, in the owe 0r stati V. y,.53 u0tktaw4 iss, 168 ~0. 164, +a:
I *Counsel on both sib08 oorrc~otlyaasuae6 that it ma th0 aaty or the board to permit
such of the~petltlowra as de&red to %o so to wIt;hdraw.~heIr nasies from the petition - - - - Th0 right or petition rr0hi it8 mare4 impmu the rI&htoiwIth%rawal, beoause, aponfuzther' 4Iaoaf4eIon aad~mora mature rdi0otion a8 to the dsrlrabIlItp or the l aoompllehment of the. pur- pose eought by the petition, the petitloner may ohange his aonylotion."
'Ln State v. Boyden, 21 & Dakota 6i 102 If. W. 897, the Suprems Court of South Dakota held that ths sQners oi a petition to oall an eleoti~Q.to~m+ve the aounty seat ooulld. remove their names from the:petltioa, either by striking them therefrom br by a subsequent petition any tIme b0r0m it was aoted apon,
%%,e loglo em% reaaoa bemd this rule has boon mmt rorosrully erplalned b? the SU~WEO (tourti 0r wlaooa- sin 3.n &s Londe V. Board 0r SaperPlsore or Barron Oounty, 49 W. W. 9601
Eon. Robert J. Allen, April 17, .1939, Page 4
"The learned oircuit judge held that the board had the right to allow persona who had 2’ signed the petition to withdraw the;eir nemoa
therefrom;or to strike their name8 from th petition, when requested so to do by the al 3-s. before the.petltlon wae finally aoted upon by the board. Waae that a oorreot view of the mat- ter? We think It was, and that it was In aooord with mason and oomon sense. For what valid objeotlon 1s there, either in law or on grouads. or publlo polio)- agaIn8talMwInga per8onwho
. ha8 signed a patitloa lalr(an ior 4 raqovql. of
the 00~tpaeat ~XW *TV* ~8,8*lu'.ama the petition Eeforu It.18 l otcia &&ion by the . board4 AS the i0amd 00~01 r0.t ,tb ~a+0,tbwt8 : nay, a person amy have been de~eivsa or: eatrep+ ped, or t&ma&h lnadvertenoe or~thoughtle881~0@8~:~, nay have 6lgne4,saoh a petition; aa&. :.og~sdflqo~-~.~ tion, ana bar028 l atloa is+akim oa Lt.;-*y UoL .~ '. aIre. ti eormat hi8 aatloii, *aa Cnth%raw~al8 :.:. aamec Why ehould, he not have the rIghta&& prl-. _' rllege or %oing 007 Aa lntelllgent man; +ofIng. dellberatelp hna ander8tand~~; play ohange, hle'ml~il oa 8uoh a question, and oonoltiae he has made a mistake In a6kIng ror a~ohange of the oounty-seat and that the pabllo Interest iril;L be prgmted by having the bounty-seat remafn-: where it Is. All thIe i8 plaIn.an% obvloimfo, 2G any one refleoting on tha mqbjeo$." J -. As heretotire statad the aatharitles are not
In entire aooor% oa this quecltioa bat by far the @eater number ot-8+ates followthe hoidlng &ad the rearonlag or the above' o.Its% oaeq by the SuprepSe'Coort of WIaooa8la. See: Hey8 y. 301168, 27 Ohio State,218; Ear% v. IElliott, 33 ImlIana 220; State vi Eggleston, 34 Ean. 7x4,~ 10 Pao. 3; State v. Wemaha Co., 10 Web. 32, 4 W. W. 393. .
Both the'weQht of authortty and the reafKmMt3 upon,wliioh the..case8 are based Inoline UB .taward the tisw that one who s&ns a petltlon may +l?sequeafly, upoa.ohang- lag his mind, revoke his aOf el@her by etrikLn&hle name from the petition hiplseir or bp 8Qning.a revoking petl- tion. we oan me no just rea8bn'It~r~opnelderIng the sign- ing @a pstltlon an lrrevooable.aot. In our opinion a petition which 18 being oiroulated among the voters 1s *5 Iion. Robert J. Allen, April 17, 1939, Page 5
lq the nature of an ambulatory instrument which may be altered or revoked by the signers thereto until the same has been acted upon for the purposes whioh it was design- ed to serve or until someone has relied theron to his detriment.
Replying speaifioally to the question present- ed in your letter we respectfully advise you that it is the opinion of this Department that the effeot or the edoona eeries 0r petitions which ask the removal 0r the signers* names from the ilr8t petition au4 ask that the 14alou Rural High Sohoof. DlstrIot be not ab0118he4 ha6 th8 6mOt Of rOv0k.m the d&IMmFOS Of t&se per8OM On ae first petition GhIoh mqus8td the County Boar% of &ho01 Trustees to ab0lIah the I%n.lou Rural,Hlgh School Dlstrlot. xr after rubtraoting rr0m the~aumbem .'. or those who signed the m-8t petitioa, the nsnms 0r
those who signed the revoaatiag petition, .the remalnIag number IS not 8urrloleat to ooastitate a majority 0r the .qMiiiiO% YObBrS Or WOb dba0ntary diEtriOt 00~~08~ _- SOh00i DlStriOt.it iOUOws that. th8 IdalOU Rural sigh ander the authority of Artlole 2922a, Revised OIvIl SW- .. totes 0r Texas, the Boar% 0r couaty Sohool TrUStees 18
not emp0werea to abolish the rural high s,oPool distriot.
,Youra very truly A%!iWWEYGSRERALOFTEiAS .
Waltsr.B.Xboh A8sistfmt LGh
A'rl!ORKEYCEN%RAL OFTIC@S