AUSTIN. TEXAS
February 24, 1950
Hon. Allan Shivers opinion no. V-1014
Governor of Texas
Austin, Texas Re: The eligibility of
members of the state
Board of Eduaation to
be candidatesfor re-
election to their
Dear Governor Shivers: present posltlons.
Pour request for an opinion reads in part as
follows:
"I would appreciateyour lnf'orming~
me whether or not, in your opinion, the
present members of the State Board of Edu-
oation are eligible to be candidates for
re-eleotlonto their present positlons."
House Bill 964, Acts 5lst Leg., R.S. 1949, ch.
546, p.1056 (Art. 26630, V.C.S.) amends Article rI of
Senate Bill 115, Acts 51st Leg., R.3. 1949, ch.299, p.
537, one of the Gilmer-Aiklnsahool laws. Section 9 of
B.B. 964 provides:
"Ho person who holds an offloe under
the State of Texas or any political subdivi-
slon thereof, or who holds employment or
reoelves any compensationfor services fPom
the State or any polltioal subdivisionthere-
of, exoept retirementbenefits paid by the
State of Texas or the Federal Government, or
any person engaged in organized publia educa-
tional activity, shall be eligible to serve
on aaid Board or be elected thereto. If0per-
son shall be eleoted from or serve in a dls-
triot who is not a bona fide resident thereo?,
with five (5) years continuousresidence there-
in, prior to his election. Eo person shall be
eligible to serve on said Board or to be eleat-
ed thereto unless he shall be e citizen of the
United States, a qualified elector of his dLs-
triot, and shall have attained the age of thir-
ty (30) yearn . . ."
.
. ..
Hon. Allen Shivers, page 2 (V-1014)
House BUl 964, aupra, creating an elective
State Board of Education, was enacted by the Legislature
porsuant to the provisions of Section 8, Article VII of
the Constitutionof Texas. Beotion 9 speaifles the
qUallf$.oationSfop the members of suah board.
other qualifioatlons,it is speoifioallyprov&'E
such seotion that "no person who holds an offlce under
the State of Texas . . . shall be eligible to e e . be
eleoted thereto."
It Is clear that members of the eleotlve State
Board of Edueatlon "hold an office under the State of
Texeq.It Art.2663d.v.c.s. Indeed, members thereof
hold the hlghestoffloe in the public school system of
this State.
If Se&ion 9 of B.B. 964 were construed llter-
ally to mean that a person who holds office as a member
of the elective Board of Education was ineligible to be
re-eleoted to that offLoe so long as he holds member-
ship on the Board, then it would likewise follow that
suoh a memberoould not serve on the Board, for Section
9 also provides that "no person who holds an offioe un-
der the State of Texas . . . shall be eligible to serve
on said Board." Furthewore, it would follow that swh
a memberoould not serve on the Board for the reason
that Section 9 also protides that no 'person engaged in
organized public eduoatlonal aotivitg, shall be eligi-
ble to serve on said Board." Thus it Is to be observed
that when the provisions of Section 9 a;reconstrued in
their entirety, aa they must be, an amblguitgresults
from giving a strict literal interpretationto the coa-
text. It is apparent that such a oonstructionwould
lead to an absurdity and oonsequencesnot intended by
the Legislature.
It is settled law, however, that statutes will
be oonstrued so as to carry out the legislativeintent.
2;upfland Statutarg ConsimmLLnn (3rd Ed. 1943) 333,
. . When suoh intent is onae ascertained,it will
be given effeot even though the literal meaning of the
words used therein Is not followed. Wood v. State, 133
Tex. 110, 126 S.W.26 4 (1939
Tex. Grim. 362, 71 S.W.2d 26
ton, 116 Tex. 572, 2% S.W.
minage Dist. go. 1 v.
49 (1909).
Furthermore, it is a well established rule of
.
Hon. Allan Shivers, page 3 (V-1014)
I~
.,
statutory construotionthet the Legislature is presumed
to have intended that which is reasonable and effectual
rather than that whPhich la productive of absurd or anom-
alous consequences. Statutes should never be given a
constructionthat leads to uncertainty,injustice, or
coninslon If it is ossible to construe them otherw%se.
39 Tex.Jur. 222, 2 $6, Statutes, Seos. 118, 131; 39 Tex.
Jur. 176-184, Statutes, Sets. 93, 95, 96.
In applying these rules of statutory construa-
tion, we have concluded that the Legislature could not
have intended that the provislons of Se&ion 9 of House
Bill 964 should apply to a person who holds an office
on the elective State Board of Education, or tomaffect
his eligibility as a candidate for re-electionto his
present position. Legislative intent to prohibit such
a Board Member from succeedinghimself in office, or
requiring his resl.gnationfrom office before offering
himself as a aandldate for re-electlonto such offlce is
not found within the law. If the Legislature had so in-
tended It could have provided for such in olear and un-
ambiguous language. This it has not done, and we so
hold.
Accordingly,It is our opinion, and you~are 80
edvised, that a member of the elective State Board of
Education is eligible to be a candidate for pe-eleation
to his present office, other qualificationsof the law
having been met, and it is not necessary that he resign
from the office in order to be a candidate for re-elec-
tion.
SUMMARY
A member of the elective State Board of
Eduoation is eligible to be a candidate for
re-eleotlonto his present office, other qual-
ificationsof Seation 9 of House Bill 964, Acts
51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch.546, p.1056 (Art.2663c,
V.C.S.) having been met.
Yours Very truly,
APPROVED: PRICE DANXL
Attorney General
J. C. Davis, JP.
County Affairs Division
Cherles D. Mathews
Executive Assistant BY
-d?sLzL-;P-
Joe R. Greenhill Chester IS.OlUson
First Assfstant Assistant
CBO:mf:mw