Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
April 17, 1939
Honorable Robert J. Allen
Lubbook County
Labbook, Temm
.:
..
we be& to aokno
or March 25, LOS9
thla laepartlncnt
coaposedor 0
ronsahooldlrr
gvgarilthe&r pemea on -theOri&nal p&itiO~ shoal& be m-
eogn&ed by then, or whether thQr ehotid a;erelyconsider
the original elgne% petition to abollsh*~theRural High
Sohool Dietriot,
Hon. Robert J. Allen, April 17, 1939, Page 2
"Providedthat the county school trustees
shall have the authority to abolish a rural
h&h sohool dlstrlat on a petition signed by
a majority of the voters of eaoh elementary
dlstrlct composingthe rural high school dls-
trict and when such district has been abollsh-
ed the elementarydistrictsshall automatically
revert back to their original status, with the
exoeptionthat In the event there are any out-
standing indabtdneaae~ agaInat the eai% rural
soheol dirtrioteaoh elwntary dietriot shall
amnuw its proportionalpart of the %abtr.*
1t is elear that ua%er iii0abate statute the
oounti sohool trusteeshave of themselvesa0 power to.
abolish a rural high sohool aimi0t unless they are rhit
authorize%$o %o so bJI"'apetItIon signed by a majority.
or tha voters of eaoh elementa- diltriot oo@@osingthe
- rural sigh sohool distdot." The ~OldS8iOIl di Appal.8
0r Texas has ad 8oaatraeda dmllar atatate in the oaae .
MesauIte IndependentSohool Dlstrlot v. Gross; 67 8.
(24j 242. we ;Inate rrom that opinion: -
*The plain words of the statute ltits
the'potentialjarisdlotlonoi.the sohqol boar%'
to Instanoeswhere It Is preeenti%wIth~the
statatoe-petition. If the statatory petltlqn
$6 absent, the jarlsdlotionof the boar% Is
utterly laokIng. -Inother words, unless an%
'ontil-theboar% Is presentedwith the titit&-,
tory petition, it has no jurIs%Iatlonin the
1 premiae8.*
.ArtIole2?62a, R. 0. a., hat35e~aieUlr rooeiv-
0% ju%loIal sanotloh by the court. There ean,_theeFam,
be no questionas to the valldlty of the prooe%un tnere-
in outlinedwhloh makes petitions signed by a majorltr
0r the qaalIrIa%voters 0r eaoh or the oomponent %lstrIots
all essentialprerequisitebefore whIoh Zhe boar% of oountr
sohool trustees oamot sot to abolIsh.ruoha'rural hi&
' sohool district.
We have been unable to find any-Texas author-
ities %Ireotly in point on the.queetign oi whether a.
signer of a petitionmay subsequentlprevoke his aot In
so signing the petltlon. The authorI8ieeOQ this qaes-
\ tIon.In other jurIs%lotIonsdarenot unlform.butthe
Hon, Robert J. Allen, April 17, 1939, Page 3
doaided weight of authorityfollows the rule 'thatone
who signs a petitionmay.subsequentlyrevoke his signa-
ture prior to the time that the petition haa been aoted
UpOIl.
‘We quote from 15 Corpus JurIs at p. 402:
"AXIelectormay legally sign two or more
non-oompetingpetitionsand he aay withdraw
b y l wr itten oommanloation,
h is a lg r uta r e wlth-
oat appear* ln.p 8r eo n. T h e withdrawalma y
be ma& after the 4atdfIxdl for hparlng and
...
. beox- rinal aotlonr~ state r. Faniah, 42 noxk- -.
tapa 26, lS4-Pao. 297.
Quot&'iropl SS Corpar JIlrisat p. '6262
:. *A &ItIoner for a.loaal option petition
nny.frMhdrawhi8 nuta rr0m ths petition at ady
flab3before the pstitloa has been aoted apon.*
cmmr v. Wewto~, lb4 Kentaokf 499, 167 s.W. 716.
The Saprege aoart.orwonta~, in the owe 0r
stati V. y,.53 u0tktaw4iss, 168 ~0. 164, +a:
I
*Counsel on both sib08 oorrc~otlyaasuae6
that it ma th0 aaty or the board to permit
such of the~petltlowra as de&red to %o so to
wIt;hdraw.~heIr nasiesfrom the petition - - - -
Th0right or petitionrr0hiit8 mare4 impmu
the rI&htoiwIth%rawal, beoause, aponfuzther'
4Iaoaf4eIon aad~moramaturerdi0otion a8 to the
dsrlrabIlItpor the laoompllehmentof the.pur-
pose eought by the petition, the petitloner
may ohange his aonylotion."
'Ln State v. Boyden, 21 & Dakota 6i 102 If.W.
897, the Suprems Court of South Dakota held that ths
sQners oi a petition to oall an eleoti~Q.to~m+vethe
aounty seat ooulld.remove their names from the:petltioa,
either by striking them therefrom br by a subsequent
petition any tIme b0r0m it was aoted apon,
%%,eloglo em% reaaoa bemd this rule has boon
mmt rorosrullyerplalned b? the SU~WEO (tourti0r wlaooa-
sin 3.n&s Londe V. Board0r SaperPlsoreor Barron Oounty,
49 W. W. 9601
Eon. Robert J. Allen, April 17, .1939,Page 4
"The learned oircuit judge held that the
board had the right to allow persona who had
2’ signed the petition to withdraw the;eir nemoa
therefrom;or to strike their name8 from th
petition,when requestedso to do by the al3-s.
before the.petltlonwae finally aoted upon by
the board. Waae that a oorreot view of the mat-
ter? We think It was, and that it was In aooord
with mason and oomon sense. For what valid
objeotlon 1s there, either in law or on grouads.
.
or publlo polio)- agaIn8talMwInga per8onwho
ha8 signed a patitloa lalr(an ior 4 raqovql. of
the 00~tpaeat ~XW *TV* ~8,8*lu'.ama
.
the petition Eeforu It.18 lotcia&&ionby the
board4 AS the i0amd 00~01 r0.t ,tb ~a+0,tbwt8
: nay, a personamy have been de~eivsa or: eatrep+
ped, or t&ma&h lnadvertenoeor~thoughtle881~0@8~:~,
nay have 6lgne4,saoha petition;aa&. :.og~sdflqo~-~.~
tion, a na b a r 028
latloa is+akim oa Lt.;-*y UoL .~'.
aIre.ti eormat hi8 aatloii,*aa Cnth%raw~al8:.:.
aamec Why ehould,he not have the rIghta&& prl-. _'
rllege or %oing 007 Aa lntelllgentman; +ofIng.
dellberatelphna ander8tand``; play ohange,
hle'ml~iloa 8uoh a question,and oonoltiae he
has made a mistake In a6kIng ror a~ohange of the
oounty-seatand that the pabllo Interestiril;L
be prgmted by having the bounty-seatremafn-:
where it Is. All thIe i8 plaIn.an% obvloimfo, 2G
any one refleotingon tha mqbjeo$." J
-.
As heretotirestatad the aatharitlesare not
In entire aooor% oa this quecltioabat by far the @eater
number ot-8+ates followthe hoidlng &ad the rearonlag
or the above'o.Its%oaeq by the SuprepSe'Coortof WIaooa8la.
See: Hey8 y. 301168, 27 Ohio State,218;Ear% v. IElliott,
33 ImlIana 220; State vi Eggleston, 34 Ean. 7x4,~10 Pao.
3; State v. Wemaha Co., 10 Web. 32, 4 W. W. 393.
.
Both the'weQht of authortty and the reafKmMt3
upon,wliiohthe..case8are based Inoline UB .tawardthe tisw
that one who s&ns a petltlonmay +l?sequeafly,upoa.ohang-
lag his mind, revoke his aOf el@her by etrikLn&hle name
from the petition hiplseiror bp 8Qning.a revoking petl-
tion. we oan me no just rea8bn'It~r~opnelderIng the sign-
ing @a pstltlon an lrrevooable.aot. In our opinion a
petitionwhich 18 being oiroulatedamong the voters 1s
Iion.Robert J. Allen, April 17, 1939, Page 5
lq the nature of an ambulatory instrument which may be
altered or revoked by the signers thereto until the same
has been acted upon for the purposes whioh it was design-
ed to serve or until someone has relied theron to his
detriment.
Replying speaifioally to the question present-
ed in your letter we respectfullyadvise you that it is
the opinion of this Department that the effeot or the
edoona eeries 0r petitions which ask the removal 0r the
signers* names from the ilr8t petition au4 ask that the
14alou Rural High Sohoof.DlstrIot be not ab0118he4 ha6
th8 6mOt Of rOv0k.m the d&IMmFOS Of t&se per8OM
On ae first petitionGhIoh mqus8td the County Boar%
of &ho01 Trustees to ab0lIah the I%n.louRural,Hlgh
School Dlstrlot. xr after rubtraotingrr0m the~aumbem .'.
or those who signed the m-8t petitioa, the nsnms 0r
those who signed the revoaatiagpetition,.theremalnIag
number IS not 8urrloleatto ooastitatea majority 0r the
.qMiiiiO% YObBrS Or WOb dba0ntary diEtriOt 00``08~
th8 IdalOU Rural sigh SOh00i
DlStriOt.itiOUOws that. _-
ander the authority of Artlole 2922a, Revised OIvIl SW-
..totes 0r Texas, the Boar% 0r couaty Sohool TrUStees 18
not emp0werea to abolish the rural high s,oPooldistriot.
,Youravery truly
A%!iWWEYGSRERALOFTEiAS
.
Waltsr.B.Xboh
A8sistfmt
LGh
A'rl!ORKEYCEN%RALOFTIC@S