Honorable Earle 

County Attorney 

Rsylor County 

Seymour, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

May 12, 

D. Garrison 

1965 

Opinion tie. C-439 

Re: Deadline for withdrawal 

of slgnatures from petltlon 

for local option election 

on sale of alcoholic 

beverages. 

Yom request 'for an opinion is based on the following 

facts: 

On March 16, 1965, the County Clerk of Baylor 

County Issued a petition, as~provldedln Articles 666-32, 

Vernon's Penal Code, for a local option election on sale 

of:alcohollc beverages, to be held in Justice Precinct 

No. 3 oft Baylor County. This statute requires that the 

completed petition be returned and filed within 30 days 

after issuance. The petition, containing 28 signatures, 

was filed with the County Clerk.on April 14, 1965. On 

April 26, 1965;aft,er expiration of the 30-day period 

but.'before the Commissioners Court had taken action on 

the petition, one of the signers filed an affidavit 

requesting that his signature be withdrawn. The number 

of signatures required on the petition is 28, and withdrawal of one signature would render the petition insufficient. 

Your question Is whether the signer of a. petition filed 

under Article 666-32 may,withdraw his signature after expiration 

of the x0-day period for filing the petition. 

Article 666-32 states in part: 

'I+ * * men a such petition so Issued shall 

within thirty (3 days after the date of issue be 

filed with the Clerk of the Commissioners Court 

bearing the actual slgnaturek of as many as twentyfive per cent (25%) of the qualified voters of any 

such county, justice's precinct, or Incorporated 

city or town, * * * it 1s hereby required that the. 

Commissioners Court at Its next regular session shall 

order a local option election to be held upon the 

-2086 
. . 

Honorable Earle D. Garrison, Page 2 (C-439) 

issue set out in such petition. * + *' (Emphasis added.) 

In an unnumhcrcd I.cttr!r opl.nl,on of the Attorney Gcncral'c 

()l'('lc:c: r',!,ltl<:I'c:~l I.0 lic,rlc,,':ll, I,: Tom I:l:lc:I(wc:l'l , (:crurll..y Al.I;~ll*ll~~y CJl 

Trav13 County, on September I’j, 1956, the I'ollowln$; quc:iI.l.on : 

was asked in regard to a petition filed under Article 666-32: 

"Once a slgnature has been properly placad on the petition 

and the petltlon filed wlth the County Clerk. can the slgner 

have his name cancelled?" The opinion stated, without dlscussion or citation of authority. that 3 pcrcon m;ly wlthclrnw 

his signature "at any time prior to the time offlclal octlon Is 

taken on the petition by the Commissioners Court." From our 

study of the question, we have concluded that this holding was 

in error'insofar as it recognized a right to withdraw after 

1 

expiration of the time limit fqr filing the petition. '~ 

In Texas Power & Light Co. v. Brownwood Public Service 

co., 87 S.W.2d~557 (Tex.Clv.App. 1935), the questlon before the 

court was when the right of withdrawal expired with respect to a , 

petition for a referendum election on the granting of a franchise : 

by the city council. .Article 1181, V.C.S., required the~clty j 

council to call an election where a sufficient petition requestlw : 

the election was submitted before the date fixed for the franchise i 

ordinance to take effect. Subsequent to that date but before the 

city council had acted on the petltlon, a number of signers attempted to wlthdraw their slgnatures. The court held that~ In the 

absence of a showing of good cause such as fraud or mistake, the 

right of withdrawal expired upon expiration of the time limit for T 

filing the petition* since It would be unfair to permit withdraw- 1 

als at a time when additions could not be made. The court dls- ; 

tlnguished the earlier case of Stahl v. Miller, 63 SrW.2d 578 

(Tex.Civ.App. 1933, error ref.), which had used language susceptlble of the construction that signatures on a referendum electlon petition filed under Article 1181 could be withdrawn at 

: 

any.tlme before the city coun'cll acted on the petition. In the ! 

stahl case, the request for withdrawal had been presented to the 

city council, and the council had acted on the petition, before 

explration of the period for filing the petition. Consequently, 

It had been unnecessary for the court to consider whether a request for withdrawal which came after expiration of the deadline ; 

for filing the petition would have been timely. 

The Texas Power and Light Co. case was,followed in Nunn : 

v. New, 222 S.W.2d 2bl (Tex.Civ.App. 1949, reversed on othe7 

grounds, 148 Tex. 443, 226 S.W.2d 116). So far as we have been 

able to find, there have been no other Texas decisions on the 

questlon of withdrawal of signaturesfrom an election petitlon. 

-2087- 
WC think the holding In the TP&L case Is controlling in the 

present situation, and accordingly we answer your question in 

the negative. The opinion rendered by this office on September 13, 1956, Is overruled to the extent that it conflicts 

with this opinion. 

SUMMARY 

: 

The signer of a petition for a local option 

'election on the sale of alcoholic beverages may 

not withdraw his signature from the petition after 

the 30-day time limit for filing the petition has 

expired. Unnumbered Attorney General's opinion 

dated September 13, 1956, Is overruled to the extent of conflict with this opinion. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General 

RYm 

Mary2aF'&- . 

Assistant’ 

Mxw:sj:zt 

APPROVEI& 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

J. C. Davis 

H. Grady Chandler 

W. 0. Shults 

Brady Coleman 

APPROVED FOR TRE ATTORNE!l GENEXAI, 

BY: Stanton Stone 

-2088-