Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1940 )

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,