Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

HonorableLeo Presnell
Couixty
Attorney
Gilmsr,Texas
.~
Dear sir: opinionHO. o-4546
Re: Validityof common school district
election,two of the electionofficers
being wives of teachersand the other
being e substituteteacher.
In yoin letter of A&i1 13, 1942, you outlinethe followingfacts:
"In a School Trusteeelectionheld in a collppo~l
school district
of this comty on the firstSaturdayIn April, the three persons
holdingthe electionwere women, two of whom were wives,~,of
teachersin the school,and the other the wife~of the janitor
inthe scheo$. doneof the wives of e teacherhas served as
substitutet&tkU in the school~fora:periodof elevenweeks
during this school term.
Yhere is no questionas to the appointmentof tPjese women to
hold the election'n& is there any questionas to their not
being qualifiedvoters of the district,thequestion merely
being based upon the close ccmnectionswhich they have with
those operdkii&aiid
.._ conductingthe ef?,$i!qof the school district."
You requestour opinionas 'UYwhether``the
elictio6so held was a valid~one.
,I; “ad:.; _ :,
Article2746, Revise&Ci~il
,_,:. i: Statutes,praviaefy’-
5aid trus*e$Y&jJ'appoint three (3) p&ons, qualifiedv&ers
of the dis``~f,i:ljfio~:shallhold.
su~hTe+++ and make returns
thereofto &i~iii-t$~$eeswithin fivs r!jy"M@ after such
election,and &id'~persons13hallreceivCd txmpeneatioafoe
their services the sum of One Doller ($1) each, to be Pd&
out of the local funds of the school districtwhere the
electionwas held. . . If, at the time ana place for
hol&ingsuch election,any or all of the personsso appointed
to'holdsuch electionare'absent07 refuse to act, thenthe
electorspresentmy select,oftheir number a person or parsons
to act in the place of those absentor refasing to act."
Hcolorable
Leo Resnell, Page 2 (O-4546)
”
The above statutedoes not aisqdify any of these personses ‘election
officeik. We refer to Article2940, RevisedCivil Statutes,which sets
out certain'disqualificationsfor electionjudges,clerks and supervisors.
If that statuteappliesto cosunon schooldistrictelectious,a ToFt
which'wedo not find it necessaryto decide,it would not render this
electionvoid. Certelnlyit would not disqualifythe two aga@t.whom
the only questionraised is that their husbandsare $eachersin the
school. Whether the substituteteacher,issuch an officeras would
disqualifyher under Art$cle'29&0is still anotherpoint unnecessaryto
determine.
The case.ofMiller v. Tucker,llg S.'W. (2) 92, involvedthe contestof
~a local optionelection. We quote therefrom:
"Appellees'contentitithat the electionwas renderedInvalid
becauseJ. Roy Lawson,the presidingoff&r, we8 at the ssme
the mayor of lkvten is also withoutmerit. There was no
showingor cont6ntlonthat the presenceof Mr. Lswso? as
prdaing ,offi+.in any way lmprope~,~.affected the result
of the elect.ign.'~F&i
objectionvas.maae~toMr. Lawson serving.
The ele&i&&s~f+rly and honestlyh&d and, so far & shown
by the record;the~voteswere correctlycountedand returns
accuratelymade. Article2940, Vernon'sAnn. Civ. St., is
directoryonly and an el&ian is not vitiatedby the fact
that the electi& $@&&ct,ti~:~xiT&`` c&r tif;,k&hority
did not possessthe requiredqualifications in the absence
of a showingof fraud or misconduct.Hill v. Sm1thville
IndependentSchool Dist., Tex. Civ; ASP. 239 S-W. 987; Gayle v.'~
Alexander,Tti. Civ. App. 75 S. W. (2) 706."
Supportingthe same principlewe cite: Bengetterv. Msrskell,70 S. W.
(2) 285; Geyle v:Alexander 75 S. W. (2) 706; Deaver v. State, ex rel.
~'ipp, 66 s. w. 256.
In our opinionthe,el&ion ia not invaliduuder the cirotrmstances
which
you relate.
Yours very truly
APPRovm APR. 24, 1942
s/ GROVER- ATl'CRHEY6ZNERALOFTEXAS
FlICST
ASSISl!AWT
ATTORWRY- s/ Glenn R. ‘$ewis
APpF@VEDoPINIONcGMrrTEE
BP B. w. B.
CHAIRWAR '.By GlennR. Lewis
Assistant
GRL:E/ law