OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL Ok+ TEXAS
AUSTIN
Hanoruble Barry 8oyd
County Attorney
Beuidsraon County
Athens, ‘&ma6
Your 33quest for he rollowln& oteted
cpl‘astion:
Isslttea have
andidata who
office at the
8 2kfteT Said 8iW$-
ere uanvasaed,*
ooneidarad by this dapartment,
Eominatton deelined
may deoline and annul his mm-
officer with whom
ation is filed, tcm
daya beiora ths eleutlua if it be for a oity
oftioe, t other oases, a deola-
and twenty days -11
mtion in writlnz3, signed by hira before emno
oftiosr authorized t3 take aokno--uladgmemts. 7li-m
suoh deolination (or in ease of death of a
llOJ&itl~~), the dXfMUtiVt3 COdttiW3 Of (I FWty
or a mnjorlty or thea for the State, die-
trio% or o.ounty aa the offloe to be mm-
inated aiy requfr&, may nominate a aandi-
date to supply the vacanoy by filing with
the eoretary of State in the base of State
or d 9 atrlot offioera, or with the county
Judge in the oaso or oount or preoinot orf%
oera a oertifloate duly 6f gned and aoknowl-
edge 4 by them, eettlng forth the oauae of
tha vaoanoy, the mime or the new noalnee,
the offioe for shioh he wae ndmlnated end
when and how he wa$ nominated. Ho exeou-
tire oomitteo rhall ever have power ot nom-
lnatlon, except where a nominoe ha8 died or
deollned the non&nation ae provided in this
artiole.W
Article8 3172 and 3173 of the Revised Civil Stat-
utee of 1911 whioh are now aodifled by Vernon ee Artiole
3165, V. A. E, S., aupra, were oonetmed by the Supreme Court
o? TeBis In the ease of Gilmore v+ Waples, et al, 188 9. X.
1037. ?ie quote rrom the oourt*e opinion a8 followsr
* The powers of a State sxeoutive
oommit~e~ in reepeot to making mmlnatlonr
for ita party are dealt with in Artioles 3172
and 327) of the Rerlaed Statute& It ill pro-
vided In Artiole 3172 that in oaee of the
death or 8 nominee for a State Office, or the
deollnatfoa of suah a nomination by a ntieo,
the State Xxeoutive Committee of the party
may nominate a oandfdate to eu~plp the vaoanoy~
The auooeeding artlole, Artlole 3173, deolarea:
“*Ho exeoutive commlttee shall ever have
any power BP nomination, except where a nom-
inee ha8 died or aeolined the nomination a8
provided in Artlole 3172.’
DThere is nothing embiguous about these
two artlolerr. Ifor is their intention in any
wlise obaouse. They very plainly oonier upon
a State oonsaittee the power of nominating fa
oandidate for a State oiiioe in lnetanoea
where there haa been a previous nomination
and .the nominee hae either deolined the nom-
ination or has died. Juet ao unequlvooally
Hmorablo Harry %oyd, Page f _
they deny suoh power to the oomlttes in
all other instanaea. The laagu~a of Arti-
01s 3173 1s pointed, olear end oertain, and
there ia nothing about It or ita oontext that
would warrant a oourt in setting it aside.
A rtatute so plain and umlrtaicable leave8
nothIng ior lntsrgretatlon or oonatruotion.
All that oourts may do with auoh a statute
i8 to observe It and earoroe it. . . .m
Artfolecr 3124 and 3125, Vernon18 Annotated Texas
Civil Statutes, provide tar ths oountf exaautfv’o oommlttee
to Oanv8M the returna of the eleltlon ana dOOlal% the rc
mat. Artiole 3125 8la0 rsqulrea the ohalman of the oouatp
exsoutivo oommlttee to oertlfy a6 nomlneo the oandldato who
reoaiYod the woeMa vote to nominate. or ooumo the
hoalnee oarinot be orf‘1: oielly aid legally known uutif the
returna hare been oanvassed and the reeulte deolarsd in ao-
oordanos with law.
It is our opinion that your question shmld bs ,’
answered in the siflrmativa, and it is so anSwered,
very truly your6
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OB T&XX3
Wm.
J. Panning
Asai &ant
WJPIGO