HonorableEarle

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 completedpetition be returned and filed within 30 days after issuance. The petition, containing28 signatures, was filedwith the County Clerk.onApril 14, 1965. On April 26, 1965;aft,erexpirationof the 30-day period but.'before

the CommissionersCourt had taken action on the petition,one of the signers filed an affidavit requestingthat his signaturebe withdrawn. The number of signatures

required on the petition is 28, and withdrawal of one signaturewould render the petition insufficient.
Your question Is whether the signer of a. petition filed under Article666-32 may,withdrawhis signatureafter expiration of the x0-dayperiod for filing the petition.

Article666-32 states in part: 'I+ * * men a such petition so Issued shall within thirty (3 days after the date of issue be filedwith the Clerk of the CommissionersCourt bearing the actual slgnaturekof as many as twentyfive per cent (25%) of the qualifiedvoters of any such county, justice'sprecinct, 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.* + *' (Emphasisadded.)

In an unnumhcrcd I.cttr!r opl.nl,onof 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: "Oncea slgnaturehas been properlyplacad on the petition and the petltlon filed wlth the County Clerk. can the slgner have his name cancelled?" The opinion stated,without dlscussionor 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 concludedthat this holding was in error'insofar

as it recognizeda right to withdraw after 1 expirationof 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 courtwas when the right of withdrawalexpiredwith respect to a , petitionfor a referendumelection on the granting of a franchise : by the city council. .Article 1181, V.C.S., required the~clty j councilto call an electionwhere a sufficientpetition requestlw : the electionwas submittedbefore the date fixed for the franchise i ordinanceto take effect. Subsequentto that date but before the city councilhad acted on the petltlon,a number of signers attemptedto wlthdraw their slgnatures. The court held that~ In the absenceof a showing of good cause such as fraud or mistake, the right of withdrawalexpired 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 constructionthat signatureson a referendum electlon petition filed under Article 1181 could be withdrawn at : any.tlmebefore the city coun'cll acted on the petition. In the ! stahl case, the request for withdrawalhad 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 withdrawalwhich came after expiration of the deadline ; for filingthe 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 questlonof withdrawal of signaturesfrom an election petitlon.

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

present situation,and accordinglywe answer your question in the negative. The opinion renderedby 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 alcoholicbeveragesmay not withdraw his signaturefrom the petition after the 30-day time limit for filing the petition has expired. UnnumberedAttorney General'sopinion dated September 13, 1956, Is overruled to the extent of conflictwith this opinion.
Yours very truly,
WAGGONER CARR Attorney General

RYm Mary2aF'&-

. Assistant ’

Mxw:sj:zt

APPROVEI& OPINIONCOMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert,Chairman
J. C. Davis H. Grady Chandler W. 0. Shults Brady Coleman APPROVEDFOR TRE ATTORNE!l GENEXAI, BY: Stanton Stone

-2088-