OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
-c.yIla
--
Bonorabl~Bwl Ilrittaln
County Auditor
San ratriolo u6wstr
glnton,Temr " /---!A
I
“‘l’&ayf& tlona appear
to h6~e been obthaed in
an Mml k wmwt, th8t ls , tbof were not taken
~: ,\aa a igdlrldual petltlon, but in 8ereral oopfw,
to the varlou8 wrte of the oamty, aab when filed
the ecweqziloqplss were attaohed together.
*A further lrrsgularlty,emldent on the faoe ot
tiheln6txuwat, lo the faot that mmy of th8 sig-
natures. such a8 hut3tmndana wife, 8on or dawhtec,
bar the handwritingof only one xmnber of the
fklUllP. The numberof signer8 on the pstitlone l#
lneuffiolentto oonstltute10 per oent of the quali-
rlsa property taxpaying toter8 unlaeo the irrsgu-
rarity in algnaturerrjust,mentlonedis oonuldsred
468
5,Bmorable Burl Brlttaln,page #a
I as valid. It appears that there we8 a design
or scheme used In order to get the ausrlolent
number O? slgner8,for Iu IIU& In~tanaes the
pereon olroulatlngthe p8tltlon reque8tsd the
slmer to alignthe name8 of other member8 or
thm rtidms.~
The followingque8tlonahare 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
or a sohems on it8 faOe, bearfng forged au6 uaauthor-
f ized elg?laturee
Is void?”
I *(b) Whether the signersmm and the unauthor-
ized n-8 ebould be ellmlnated In counting the num-
F- ber neoesnarpfor 10 per oent, or whether the un-
& authorizednemes only should be ell&Inated?”
3. Whether algneremay wIthdraw their nauwu
after the l;rsltitlon
has been rllea, aither by strlk-
I ine off their rumis or riling a supplementarypeti-
tIoa asking t&t their name8 be w5.thdrawnfrom the
i. DetitIon?”
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,allho? whIoh petition for 6n elso-
on on tha .sameor ldentloal aueatlon.DrOYided they am
mw l-0.Rudd, es 24 63, the Court of Clvll Apyeala
mild,with rerarence to d queetlon 8Imller to that submitted
ia the instant g&tie,thet a petition ‘biroulatedin sight
Darts aud attaohed at the tine of filing oonstltuted,but one
DWtion. The same aubjeot matter appearing in the heading
’eFiohof the eight parts being the same nnd aubaequently
riled at the same time wee h6ld euiilolent to authorize the
Qourtto make the neoesearp orders pursuant thereto.
HonorableBurl Brlttaln,paae #S
With roierenoe to'your question (a) under 2, we
thinkthat to stata the qua8tlOa la to anmar it, tar the
meson that the law oontemplate8 that a4 petltlonto r0nn
the baa18 of a legal eleotlon rhall be genuine in every
raepeot,and that ii the authority to whom said petition
la dlraotad datsnnlnsrrit to be a rcheme or a fraud,or
that It beam rorged and unauthorlsedsignaturer, 8uoh de-
termluatlonla not subjaot to oollateralattaok. Thlr
presents more a question or faot than or law, but it 8ecma
elanantarythat if the petition shone deei-, fraud or
eohemeand bears fortpd and unauthorlaedslgnaturse, 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 genuineslgwatureacxfqualiiledproperty
taxpayingvoter8 ror any purpose, and ow think that the CommIa-
rlonars'Court rrouldba aotIng olaerlp wlthln its dI8oretlon in
ellxlnatlngunauthorizednam88 and elgnatureeirom any petition
presentedto 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
8uohdkolslon bae been fraudulent Or corruptly nmde or pmoured,
Or tinleas ho has been ullty of an abuse ot dlacretlon. 906
20 Corpus ilurla,91; a180 State vs. Orave8, 107 lf.E. 1018.
fIt mat be~‘assumad that tha authority to whom apetition~lr
~~diraoted'will not abuse their discretion nor reaoha deolalon
%predloatedupon fraud, or k&at auoh authority ha8 any desire
$0 eliminatefrom a petition elgnatureeof 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 a petition my withdraw
their nemee berore offlola aation has bean taken
thereon."
IonorableBurl 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
nen188It should be di8cis8'30."
Trusting that the foragoiag sattsfeatorilpanswWs
you! 1nqulry, we are _
CECLS
.
APPROVEDDEC 18, 1940
A,