Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1984 )


Menu:
  •                                    The Attormy               General of Texas
    JIM MAlTOX                                            Nsvember 14. 1984
    Attorney General
    Honorable Ray Parabee                            opinion   No. ``-231
    Supreme Couti Bullding
    P. 0. Box 12549                  Chairman
    *usm.    TX. 78711.2549          State Affairs Comml’ttee                         Re: Whether an employee resident
    512l4752501                      Texas State Senate                               of a state    school is a legal
    Telex 910/87C13S7
    P. 0. Box 12068. Calpitol Station                resident   of    the  surrounding
    T&copier     512i4750266
    Austin, Texas   78711                            independent school district
    714 Jackson. Suite 700           Dear Senator Farabee:
    Dallas. TX. 75M2.4M6
    214174269U
    You have informed us that an employee residing on the campus of a
    state    school seeks election        to the board of trustees          of the indepen-
    4824 Albwla    Ave.. Suite 160   dent school district       in which the state school is located.               The state
    El Paso. TX. 799052793           school     Is a star:e correctional          facility      for    delinquent    children
    91515333464                      administered     by tt,e Texas Youth Commission pursuant to chapter 61 of
    the Ruman Resource19 Code.            The state     school is not an independent
    .dol Terra    suits   700
    school district      having geographical      boundaries;       it is a state-created
    “ourton. TX. 77002.3111          and state-administered        facility    having no elected board of trustees.
    7lY22MSS9                        All employee residents       of the state school are employees of the state
    of Texas.       Tbe geographical        boundaries     of the independent          school
    district      completely    enclose     the state       school.       The employee       in
    606 Broadway. Suite 312
    Lubbock. TX. 79401.2479
    question has resided on the campus of the state school for more than
    SW747.5239                       six    months,    has voted       in previous        independent       school   district
    elections, s sc``ol;as
    district,                     children     attending       the     independent     school
    4309 N. Tenth. Suite B
    McAllm. TX. 7S501.1SS5
    512,SS2-4547                             You ask us the following       questions:
    1. Uader the facts as outlined above, does the
    200 Main Plaza, Suits 400
    applicant   for a place on the district  ballot meet
    San Antonio, TX. 762052797
    the resld’ency requirements of article   1.05 of the
    51212254191
    Election   Code for a ‘district   or political    sub-
    division, ’ so that he may appear one the ballot    as
    a candidate     for the board of trustees      of the
    inaependznt school district?
    2.    If  the applicant        does not satisfy   the
    requirements of article        1.05 of the Election Code,
    is he still     qualified   to vote in the elections   of
    the     independent     school     district  pursuant  to
    article     KC, section 2 of the Texas Constitution?
    3.   If   the applicant is not permitted to be a
    candidat?    or to vote in the independent school
    n. 1036
    Honorable Ray Farebee - Page Z!               (JU-231)
    district   elections    by virtue    of his status as a
    state employee reaidtng on the campus of a state
    facility,     does   this.  prohibition    constitute  a
    denial of equal Ilrotection        or a deprivation   of
    liberty   under thd! Fourteenth        Amendment of the
    United States Constitution?
    We conclude,   first,   that the state employee applicant       does meet the
    residency  requirement of ar!:icle    1.05 of the Election    Code, and that
    his name may appear on the b,LLlot as a candidate for a position       on the
    board of trustees       of the independent    school   district.     A state
    employee cannot conclusively       be presumed to be a nonresident       of a
    political   subdivision   by vj,rtue of his status as a state        employee
    residing in a state enclave.
    Article       1.05,   V.T.C.S..   of the Election      Code provides     in part   as
    follows:
    Subdivision    1. No person sball be eligible             to
    be a candidate for, or to be elected or appointed
    to,    any public     trlective    office      in this    state
    unless     he is a citizen         of the United States
    eligible      to    holsd     such     office      under     the
    Constitution      and laws of this            state . . . and
    unless he will hav’e resided in this state for a
    neriod of 12 monthe next nrecedlnn the annlicable
    iate specified      below, and for an; public** office
    which is less than statewide,            shall have resided
    for six months ntgt preceding              such date in the
    district,    county, precinct,      municipality.     or other
    political    subdivision     for which the office        is to
    be filled.      (EmphasK added).
    The residency       requirement   for   any candidate     for   any public
    elective   office    in Texas is 12 months in the state preceding the last
    day his name may be placed on the ballot              and 6 months in the state
    preceding    such date In the distrkt           or political   subdivision.     The
    Court of Civil Appeals has held that a school district            was a “district
    or political      subdivision”    within the meaning of article       1.05 of the
    Election Code. See Brown v. Patterson,            609’S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Clv. App.
    - Dallas 1980, T          writ).   ?ou   indicate    that the applicant,     as an
    employee ot the state,        has c#l?sided on the campus of the state school
    for more than six months.
    What constitutes      “reslinsnce”     is defined in article    5.08.(a)  of
    the Election     Code:     “domicj.le;    i.e.,    one’s home and fixed place of
    habitation   to which he intends toxurn              after any temporary absence.”
    The Election      Code does not: define          “residence”  for the purpose of
    running for public office,         but the term has been construed to mean the
    same for the purposes of voting as for the purposes of running for
    political   office.    Cf. Prince v. Inman. 
    280 S.W.2d 779
    (Tex. Civ. App.
    ---
    c
    Ronorable   Ray Farsbee   - PaSe 3       (JM-231)
    - Beaumont 1955, no        vrit).     For   the     purpose   of   voting,   article
    5.08.(i) states that
    [t]he   residence    of one who is an officer     or
    employee of the g;overnment of this state or of the
    United States shall be construed to be vhere his
    home was before    . . . unless he has become a bona
    fide   resident   of    the place  where he is    in
    government servic:fr. . . .
    Determining the question      of residency    is a question      of intent    and
    factual circumstances.     It ,Ls not within the authority       of this office
    nor within the discretion    of the official    receiving   the application    to
    determine those factual     qnastions.     See Parker v. Brown. 
    425 S.W.2d 379
    , 381 (Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1968,          writ)   (question of residence
    is to be judicially      determined);    see also Mills      v. Bartlett,     
    377 S.W.2d 636
    , 637 (Tex.       1'364) (residence     Is determined     by factual
    circumstances).
    In any event,     article    5.08 when read with article         1.05 cannot
    operate    to disenfranchise:       a state    employee who lives        within   the
    geographical     boundaries      of the independent       school  district     merely
    because his place of resid'ence is located on a public enclave.                   The
    right to vote and to run for a political           office    are basic fundamental
    rights    guaranteed     by tha First       Amendment to the United            States
    Constitution.      Dunn V. Blumstein,         
    405 U.S. 330
    (1972);         Evans v.
    Cornman. 
    398 U.S. 419
    (1975);             ,ington v. Rash, 
    380 U.S. 89
    (1965).
    Any statutory      provisions      which restrict    the right     to hold public
    office   should be construei. strictly       against ineligibility.        See Chapa
    v. Whittle,    
    536 S.W.2d 681
    , 683 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1976
    no writ).
    The factual   situation    as presented is governed by the principles
    of Carrington     v. Rash, supta,       and Evans v. 
    Co-n, supra
    .   In
    Carrington,    the United Swtes       Supreme Court held that article      VI.
    section    2 of the Texas Constitution         was violative    of the equal
    protection   clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the provision
    established   a conclusive    presumption against servicemen from acquiring
    residency   for voting purposes.       However, the Court did conclude that
    "Texas ha[d] a right to require that all military          personnel enrolled
    to vote be bona fide resitients of the 
    community." 380 U.S. at 93-94
    .
    At that time the state of Texas provided no means by which a soldier
    could establish     a bona fide residency       in the county where he was
    stationed.
    Similarly,    in Evans '5 Cornman. 
    398 U.S. 419
    (1970).    the United
    States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether persons living on
    a federal    enclave could acquire residency    for voting   purposes.    In
    m.       &.      the Permanent Board of Registry    of Montgomery County.
    Maryland, ruled that perwns       living  on the grounds of the National
    Institutes    of Health [hereinafter     NIH]. a federal   enclave  located
    Honorable   Ray Parabee - Page s!,      (Jn-231)
    withla    the geographical     boundaries   of the state,       did not meet the
    residency requirement of the! Maryland Constitution.              Accordingly, NIA
    residents    were denied the right to vote In Maryland elections.              The
    Court   in striking     down the provision    of the Maryland Constitution      as
    violative    of the equal protection      clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
    to the United States Constitution,        held that the state could assert no
    overriding     interest   to restrict   the right to NIH enclave residents;
    and, that NIB residents wer I! residents        of Maryland and were “just as
    interested    in and connected with electorial         decisions    . . . as [are]
    their neighbors who lived off the enclave.”          -Id.  at  426.
    We conclude that Carrington and Evans prohibit       election    officials
    from applying     article    1.05 x    circumscribe  the right       of a state
    employee to acquire residency        to run for public office      by virtue of
    the fact that he resides OIL a state enclave,        particularly,       as here,
    when the state enclave is l.c~cated within the geographical            boundaries
    ,of the political    subdivision   in which he seeks office.      The purpose of
    article   1.05 is to provide better representation      by assuring that the
    voter will be better acquainted with the qualifications            and views of
    the candidate and the candidate will be acquainted vith and responsive
    to the needs and desires of the voter.        See Brown v. 
    Patterson, supra
    .
    By construing article     1.05 jn favor of theresidency      of the applicant,
    the statutory    purpose ~111 rot be frustrated.
    Since your second and third        questions   are ~predicated on a
    negative answer to your firt,t question,    it ia not necessary to address
    them.
    SUMMARY
    Article   1.05 o:i the Election Code does not bar
    a state      employe,? from establishing         residency
    within an indepentlent school district       by virtue of
    the fact     that he resides        on a state    facility
    located    within the: geographic      boundaries of the
    independent      school   district.       The applicant,
    having met the res,idency requirement may obtain a
    place on the ballot: for the position       of trustee of
    the independent school district.
    I
    Very truly   y
    J  JIM
    L
    MATTOX
    Attorney General of Texas
    TOMGREEN
    First Assistant    Attorney   General
    p. 1039
    Eonorable   Ray Parabee - Pagr 5    (JM-231)
    DAVID R. RICBABDS
    Executive Assistant Attorney   General
    RICK GILPIN
    Chairman, Opinion Committee
    Prepared by Tony Guillory
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINIONCOMMITTEE
    Rick Gilpin, Chairman
    Colin Carl
    Susan Garrison
    Tony Guillory
    Jim Moellinger
    Jennifer Riggs
    Nancy Sutton
    Bruce Youngblood