OFFlCEOFTHi ATTORNEY OENERAL~C&'EXAS
-AUSTIN
Bonorablo C. 0. Nurdoch
CoulltTAttorney
Hermrd county
aenard, TCX88
qurlIfI8d
who hold8 any offlue OS
or either the un1tod at8t.r
In 8ny clt7 or town In thi8
*I &'&Or the oplnlon that a deputy rhorlff
OmOt 80-8 L8 c&inVn Of the EXeOUtiV8 COr-
Bitt.8 Of a OOUXit~l hwever, It i8 9 UDhr8tmd-
lng tht If one voro to do 80, If thare vercno
lrregularltIe8, or fraud, la the holdlag of
lleotlona, the dOOtiOn8 vould be valid.
-
Honorable C. 0. Murdoch, Page 2
"Chestnut YE. Wells, 278 3. W. 465:
280 9. w. 351
oayle VI. Alexander, 'i'5
3. h'. (al1 706;
savage vn. umphrlon, 118 3. v. 893."
It vi11 be observed that the pertinent words of the
statute you cite (Article 2940, R. C. S.), and vhich ve empha-
nice, Are an follovsl
‘0 l l no r 8hrll anyone Sot ae ohalrnn
a ny off108 of prarlt or tru8t u nder l l l
*hIa State, l e l."
The prl.wwy irotor to be deterrlnrd In ansuerlng your
que8tIon an 8tated, 18 whether the plain tenor OS the above
8peoiallyquoted and lapha8iSed vord8 of the 8tatute are to be
con8Id8I'edaS mt%AdatoryOC dIX%otoz'y. IA the ea8e of 0ayle YE.
Alexander, (Tex. Clv. App.) 75 S. W. (36) 706, at p. 708, the
:dI8tIUOtiOiXbotVMn the tV0 temn a8 applied t0 Artlole 2940 10
Stated thU8ly:
** l l, & -tOly pFOVi8iOn in a 8tat-
ute 18 one, the 0ml88i0n to follw vhloh rendem
the prooeeding to vhIoh It relate8 lllegrl aad
void, While a di.l’OOtO~ prOVi8iOA 18 OAe, the
obeemanee Of rhiUh I8 XlOtA8Oe88aw t0 the
Validity of the prooeeding. A 8tatute my be
lWldatOry In SOm8 X'e8WOt8 and dIreOtOrJ in
Oth8P8. 59 c. J., p. 107~, 8 63001owrier v.
ca8tock, 108 Ark. 515, 159 S. W. 1097, par.
3; Hoaklng Power Co. v. HuI-I~oA, 20 Ch.IoApp.
135, 153 A. E. 155, 156, par. 1; Deibert v.
Rhoden. 291 ?a. 550, l&O A. 515, 516, 517,
Parr. 2, 3. 8ad 4. There 18 no unIver8il
rule or sblolute te8t by which direoto~ pro-
vlslon8 in s 8trtute my in all oirouwtanae8
be dI8tInguIahed from those vhioh are mandatory,
but In the QetermInatIon of thir qUe8tiOXL, a8
every Other qUe8tiOn Of 8tatUtOTI OOli8tNOtiOP,
Honorable C. 0. Murdoch, Page 3
be given a manclatorysigAifIaanae to effeat
the legislative intent. On the other hand,
the language of a statute, hovever mandatory
in form, may be deeasd dlreatory whenever
fhe leglrslatlvepurpore OUI beat be carried out
by SUOb UOA8tPUOtiOA. 59 c. J., PP. 1072. 1073,
I 6311 Burton v. McOulm (Tex. Clv. App.) 3 S.U.
(?d) 576, 583, par. 15s Haman City, II.dc'0.R.
Co. v. Roche8ter Independent School Diet. (Tex.
Clv. App.) 292 9. Y. 964, 965, par. 1; Valley
Bask v. Mlcolm, ?3 Arls. 395, 204 P. 307, 311,
par. 4; People lx rel. Tho4~80n T. San Borxurdho
llighSohool Dl8t., 62 Cal. App. 67, 216 P. 959,
per8. 3 8Bd 4. he legl8laUve iAte& In 8~-
aotIa#t the art1 e under OoMideration -8
8videAtlY to re8trlot th8 .8eleotioAof lleotian
officer8 to those vho vere free from thq 8
or interer
a failure to pq l poll tax.- 30 f8r a8 the 8eleo-
8uOh rituatloa Is prec!ent;din tbI8 case. But
8hotid the prOVI8IOA8 of 8aId artiole In that
pha8e of Its appliartlon be held maMatorT, It
doe8 not Moea88rlly follov that vhea a per8oa
nund In said artlole has been 8eleoted a8 821
eleatlon offloer for a pertioular votlag pm-
OiPOt, snd his 8eleOtiOn ha8 A& been a88ailed
but bar been soquie8oed IA w th8 qualified
electors of auoh preoinot by partlolprting IA
the eleatlou held therein, and the vote8 os8t
In suoh preolnot have been fairly and correotly
oountcd md tabulated aad return thereof duly
made, Mmt euoh eleotlon a8 to nald precinct
should, rolely by reason of the pertlolpetlon
of such el8CtiOA offioer iA holding the am.
. ..,
Honorable C. 0. Uurdooh. Page 4
be declared void, the returns thereof exoluded
from the 04nv4aa of the votes mat In said
elactlon in the entire county, 8nd tha voters
of such preolmt thereby ln effeot dlafmnchlsed."
-(Emph4ala ourn).
In the above oaae, Oayle aad Alexunlar ware opposing
caadId4tea for the office of a8aea8or And oolleotor of tuea
or xcLenllAnCounty. After the election, the o~nvA88 of return8
showed Aleunder tha VlAAar, aad 0ayle rought to have the 8lec-
tlon in low boxes of the oouut~ deolmed A nullity on the
ground that 0ertAi.npreoiuot election OffiCIdL8 vare dlaqrull-
fled to rot. Of the ohAllenged predwt officers of eleotlon,
the trIA1 oourt found thAt four ven 8ohool truteea at the
tlma or the lleetlon; thAt one aAn hold A *purported AppoInt-
Bent * a8 deputy 8herlff, but hod never tAkAn the orth nor re-
calved oompena4tIon 8s luoh offloer; rrd that three had been
aotlng as deputy tax aaae8mora for Alexander, the appellee,
from January to I(ayof the year of the election, vhlah vaa held
in July.
The court furtbsr found th4t th8 lleetlon ~88 fairly
and honsrtly held; that the aeleotlon of the 4bove mentioned
election OffIceP8 ~68 not fFaUdUleAt1~ bmqht about; that their
nerViOe bid AOt 088t 8U8piOiOn Or doubt UpOn th8 I'OStitOf tb
eleotianfAnd thAt the votera pArtIaipAtIn@ in the eloctlon rhould
.’ IlOt b. di8f?UtOhi8ed beOAU8e Of #U&S 88l’VlCe.
In Addition to the above quoted dI88ertAtiOllupon *m8n-
datorf and *dIreotorf provIaIona of the 8tetute, the UAOO Court
of Civil AppeAlI, In AffIraIng the trlrl court, 8180 relied upon
the prlnolple ltAted In the earlier oaae of &VW vs. Uaphrlea,
(Tex. 01~. ADD.) 118 8. Y. 893, wherein the loo41 optlan lleotlon
under aon8IdentIon 1m8 upheld derpite the faot thAt A olty Alder-
man aoted AS 4n lleotlon judge, beeau8e 4nother of the JuQer 1~8
not dIrqu4lIfIed. Pointing out th4t in the pending case them
vere IA each voting preoinot, in addition to the obrllenged of-
flalal other judgea and alerka p4rtloIprtlng therein, the S4v4ge
vs. Umphrlea rule ~48 4pprored by the Y4co Court in the Oayle vs.
~lehnder case, aupra.
Upon the queatlon before ~8, ve think It appropriate,
4apaalally in viev of our cIt4tIon or the oa80, to quote from
avage v. Umphrlen (11B 8. U. 893, at p. 901):
ffonorableC. 0. Humloah, Page 5
“The general rule IS thAt Statutory provi-
alone regulating the conducting of public elec-
tlons, if not uule nandetory by the axpreaa
teraa of the l&v, will be oonatrued 6s so far
directory that the lleotlon will not be mill- '
flea by UN Irre~larltie8, not frAudulentlY
brought About, when the departwe from the
pmaorlbed method was not so great 8a to throv
A 8ubatAntIAl doubt oa the I%8Ult, And vh8re
It la not shorn that thp~ vaa any obstacle to
4 rrir And free expn8sl.m of the will of the
electors. 8184k on Interpretation of b%VS, p.
353. It la said thott 'There la nothing better
settled than thst the.wtr of election officera
de facto, who AW in under color of election
or appointaent, am A8 valid. a8 to third prr-
tie8 And the pUbllo, a8 those of offloern de
f - The doctrine tlvrtelector8 may be dI8-
rFZhinea becAUSe one or eon of the judge8
or lnapeotor8 0s election did not poa8eaa all
the qUdififJ@titXi8requlmd rinds
by 18~ no
support In the deoi8Iona 0s AUY judIoI81
trIbune.1 15 cyc. 311. t here if the
Allegationa in Appellmtr @mer a 8wndment
8e he, ln violetion of the tit?,
aoted A0 A ju@e Of the election, It ohotid be
deOiAF8d do 8.d Void A8 t0 that pZWO%ILOt.
It 8eema to us thAt the qwatlon 48 to the
vslidity or i.XWA~idityof the election should
be determIned As though he hod not hated at
all, in the absence of my allegAtion that he
did MythIng th6t v0rrla tend to change the x-e-
8tit. Jh th 1 8
viw the lleotfon IA that p m-
clnot should be regerded As having been pm-
aided over by only one judge, for tha coUntY
ocnumlealonsra'court v4a required in voting
;...b~-.
. .‘. , ,
Honorabls C. q. &mlooh, Page 6
preclnctr, vbw8 there vore 1088 than 100 vot-
.eravho bnd prld tholr poll tax mid received
-'theiraertlflo&tes of exeqptlon, to appoint
tvo reputable,men. vho vere qualified votsrr,
a8 Judge8 of the election, aad It vi11 be
preaured tha$,lt performd thl8 duty. We
lm not pAp‘Nd, therefore, to hold that,
booau8e oae of the 9artlos sppolntod a8 Judge
vaa prohIbited m the lav from rotlng a8 auoh,
vould vitiate, 80 ae to render null, the elec-
tlon ae to etmh praolnot, p-aided over by
the a tb erjudge, vh o ,in th elbaenoe of an
llle g h tlo n oontruy, mu8t be preeumed
to the
a8 &mpeteat to rots fop to 80 hold vould be
to df8frubahl8e all th8 quallflod eleotors
vho voted rt ula preolnot, vlthout it apperr-
ing that the lleetlon va8 in any vay affeOted
br being preerldedover by one judge, instead
of tvo a8 required by the 8tatute. We there-
fOl’S OVWPUh tb a88i@tMllt. ’ (&E9hl&818 OUl’8. )
Your referonoe to the oa8e or Che8tIiUtv8. Well8 var
noted; Ye flad tvo di8tinat oa8e8 on the cited page8 of the
South Ue8tem Report*. - fi.P8t 18 che8tnut T8. we118, (TSX.
Cit. AFT.) 278 9. W. 565, the wooad 18 Cheatnutt ‘18. Uelh,
(Tex. Cl*. App.) 280 8. U. 351. Although the 8~8 partle8 89-
peer lltlgent, the numben of the oases are dlfierent8ad the7
89lWU’ t0 ba 8epUk 8pit8.
In any event, the Court of Civil
A9~18 ia each oaqo pOint8 out that the elections held vere
"8peOla.l"once 8nd th8t the prorl8lons of vhat fe nOV codified
88 A&101. 2940, Rotlred Clril Btatutes, being E part of the
Tern11 Rlootlon Lar, did not apply. We believe a further 8tudy
Of the oa8e8 vfll aosrtinoeyou of their lnnppllaablllty here.
he, al80 an n8 alal" lleotlon8, the 01808 of walker v8. I(obler,
(lb. civ. App.Y 105 8. W. 61; Ibid, (Sup. Ct., nn8vering oerti-
fled aue8tloar) 103 8. W. 990; Xx mrte Ander8on, (Tex. Cr. A99.)
102 3. Y. 727~ 8111 v8. Smlthvllle Independent school Dl8trlat.
(Tax. Clv. App.) 239 8. Y. 987, 9. 991; Hlller WI. Tucker, (Tex.
Civ. App.) 119 8. U. (2d) g?.
In the aa8.eof Ruff V8. Duffleld, (Tex. 01~. App.)
351 3. W. 298, there ta8 (LCOdXJ8t of an lleotlou held to fill
the office of oountr u&d dl8trlot olerk of Wfllrcy Countr at
the gmmal llea tfo a ~The votes of flrteen (15) percronevere
objected to beamlee the pre8idlng offlcer at the box vhere the
Eonorable C. 0. Xurdoah, Page 7
persons voted V&s also act143 aa 9oatmnster, end he alone vrote
hla name on the back of eaoh of the ballots. Holding that the
.vote8vere properly alloved the 00Urt 8tm88Od the point that
the prerlding judge va8 not the poetslaster"but merely taking
care of the office until other arruyasenta vere Ilide."
The mO8t lWOellt 018e Ve haYe found 18 that Of ge8bItt
YE. Coburn, (Tex. Clv. App.) 143 3. w. (26) 279. Oppcalng cendl-
date8 fer the Democratlo nO@liatlOa for cmnty Com188iOner be-
came partle8 to a oOdX8t lollovIng the 88COnd 9rlIBaryof 1940.
The faot8 and oontentlom on the point 8ufflolentlJ l9pear in
the follovlag quotation froa the oplnlonr
"Appellant contend8 that all of the
VOtO8 CJa8tat the %IIie VOthg box, vhere
lppellw reoelred a va8t Mjorftr thereof,
8hotid have been held Illegal and not count-
ed beoaure tbs partr vho sated a8 the pre-
8lding judge of 8aid voting box had not been
properly appointed the pre8idIng juQe there-
Of. It dOe8 not appear that 8ueh party had
been eXpre88lr 8elected by the IkroCr8t10
Executive Comalttee of the aounty to hold
tha election on the occasion in question.
Howver, it doe8 appear that he va8 the
mBOorat10 ooa1tteemm frcm that preolnct
and that It ha been the ou8ton for year8
fo r laoh preolnot ahalraan of said county
to 8erve a8 the preetdlag judge of the elec-
tion ln hi8 preolnot. The rule 8eeIU8to be
that the 8tatute8 vlth .referUme to the m8n-
net of l9polatIug eleotlon ofricer am
dlmotory end that Irregularltla8 therein
vi11 not affeot the validity of the election.
In SUoh Oa8e8 vhere them 18 a0 prote8t on
the part oi the VOter8, the will b8 held
to have ratified the lllegeI appointmnt or
uaauthorlred a88um9tion of ruthority of the
party vho 8erve8 a8 8uoh deotlon judge.
HI11 v. iialthvllleInd. School Dist.. Tex.
Clv. App., 239 3. U. 9871 L&aver v. State.
27 Tex. Clr. App. 453. 66 3.Y. 256. It doe8
not appear that there va8 q protest on the
part or the voter8 vlth reieronae to the
proaiding judge la the voting box in Question.
we therefore h&d that the oourt did not em'
.
Honorable C. 0. Murdoch, Page 8
in refu8lng to hold es illegal the votes
counted at 8Pld Donle votIAg box.”
Froa the above lUthOriti8e and other8 u8mlned:by us,
ve think it extremely doubtful that the same realt vould be
attained vhere a aounty ebalrma~'s ell lblllty should be ohal-
lewed. Inever ca8e y lxamlaed by u8 7and after exten8lve
searah ve have not foaad on0 l.n~olvlnga county ehalmen , the
COwt8 have emid upan ooatertr belng brought after the l1latlon,
that - burdma lW8t8 WOa OOllte8tMt8 t0 8hWxt the lU8Ult8
of the lleotlon vere affeotti or ohangea bT the 1rreguLa~
departure from the 8tatuto. we can aoaoeive that 8uoh 8 tie
vould be oonaldend 8afe and 8ound insofar a8 applicable to
elsatlon judge8 or alerk8 vho8e dutIe8 am largely 8ilnl8terlal
and vho8c vork oar be oheaked by other per8on8 vhore lllglblllt~
vould not be IA que8tloa, vhema8 a different cono1u8lo~ Eight
vell be reached IA the ea8e of a county chalnun, the nature of
vhoac dUtia8 aa fixed by lav mae88arlly involve m8ny act8 of
OffiOi~ dlroretlon, a8 Veil 88‘Other 8Ote Of mfnfrteril~ ~MAc-
t1aAing. We deer it uDaeae88ary to attempt to li8t here 811 of
the88, but ru??loe it to point out that he lo the pmnlding of-
fleer over all meting8 of the ootmt~ comnlttee; he 18 ?urAl8hed
IA ldv8Aoe of eleotlon8 the llrt8 of qualified votere; he ia the
recipient of the return8 br lleotlon and custodian of every one
Of the bbllOt8 OtL8tbt the e&OtioA; he dOOl&re8 the aW8tit, md
certifie8 nw to other proper OfffCibl8; he pm8lde8 over all
OOUaty ooPVentiOA8;he 18 by VirtUa Of hi8 OffieO an eX-OffiCiO '
mmber of all dI8trict lxeautlve committeea o? hi8 party; he
colleot8 and disburse8 the expeme Monet needed to conduct the
prlmarles; he lppolnt8 the preainct presldlng judgea vlth the
approval of the ueautlve oomlttee; IA geIura1 election8 he may
~PPOfXLt8U9WTi8Or8 -- In rhort, he 18 one of the moostIBpOrtaAt
fogs in the rehlnerj of our election ey8ter. Ylth ju8t a little
slip' here aad a~ rrlnadvertenae"there, he can, un.le88of UA-
qUe8tlonable Integrity and con8olentlou8 aeration to the high
trU8t lmpo8ed upoa hla, in m and various vayr dlONpt the
order17 8nd boaert prooedum aontelplated by the levmekere to
1Aew the purIt7 of the ballot -- the strongest comer atone
in omr 8truotum of a ire8 government.
A d.eputTlherlff certainly holds an “office of profit
Or trust”
under the lava of this State. He 18 ao moognlsed by
both the 8tatutow 8.ndthe case lav of TeXa8. Be 1s appointed
by the 8heriff, to 'oontlnue In offloe" during the Plea8ure of
his prlnolpebl he haa paver md authorltr to perform all the
act8 8~d duties of the sheriff hluelf; he mu8t take the offi~lel
. . .
l!,norablsC. 0. Murdoch, Page 9
oath. See Revised civil 3XfUtC%. ArtlClen 6809, 6&o, 3884,
3891, 3902, 31024 Code of Crlmlnal Procedure, Articles 30, 44;
M:ller vs. AlexnAder. 13 Tex. 497, 506: Tovne vs. Harris, 13
512; Ytnte vs. Brooks, 42 Tax. 6?; Murray WI. State,
Tex. fiO'1,
0
"' s. U. (26) 274; 34 Tex. Jur. 601.
It aeara 80 self-evident an to be trite to say that a
deputy sherlrf ha8 a vltrl and per8onal lnterert IA ths outcome
of every election a?fectIAg hi8 prinolpal. Hi8 IlaB lay 88 V411
be on the ballot, for vlth the defeat of his sheriff he ca88es
t3 be 8uch officer, 108lag AOt only hit title and office but his
emOhEeAt8 aa veil.
Ue agree vlth your oonolu8lon that a deputy sheriff la
not qualified to 8eme aa 8 oount.7ohalrmn of the Democratic
party.
We further believe that under the authorities heralA
di4CU88Od, he could unque8tIonablj be ousted from a4rVing or
attempting to 8erve in 8uch oapaoity. Upon the proposition you
assert that if one vere to do 80, the eleotlcum vould be valid,
absent proof Of Irre~arltIea or fraud, ve expmer no opinion
at thi8 time due to the utter laok of any such aa4e hevlng ap-
peared a8 ooning before any appellate court of thla State. It
is dlfflault for u8 to oonaelve of the electorate permlttlng the
- question to reach that stage, or for the officer In question,
whoever he may be, to Fnalst upon it.
Yours very truly
Benjamin Uoodall
.L_. Assistant
BW:RS