EA NEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 11,TrcxAs 

wA<:<:oNEK CAKX 

A-rroRS~- ,i*lSF-H*L October 15, 1964 

Honorable Charles A. Allen Opinion No. C-332 

Criminal District Attorney 

Marshall, Texas Construction of Article 

g&32, Vernon's Penal Code. 

Dear Mr. Allen: 

In your re ueet for an opinion, you ask whether the 

language of Article % 66-32, which pPe8OribeS the form of the 

petition In a local option election, is mandatory or directory. 

That provision reads: 

"The petition for a local option election 

seeking to legalize the sale of alcoholic beVePage8 

of one #or more of the various types and alcoholic 

content8 shall be headed 'Petition for Local Opt-ion 

Election to-Legalize,' and shall contain a atatement just ahead of the sign-s of the petitioners, 

as follows: 'It 18 the hope, purpose and intent of 

the petitioners whose signatures appear hereon to see 

legalized the sale of alcoholic beverages referred to 

in the Issue set out above."' (&phaSiS supplied) 

You state In your request that of the 140 petitions 

submitted to the Commiaslonerfs Court for action 'thereon, 50 

of them were merely headed "Petition for Local Option Election," 

and did not contain the exact wording of the above provision. 

You state further that the other 90 petitions contained th@ express wording of the statute. The ultimate question, then, is 

whether or not 50 petitions will have to be thrown out for the 

reason that they are not in strict compliance with the, statute. 

Ordinarily, when the word "shall" i8 used, the presumption is that it is in the imperative, and not in the direcWcDaren v. State, 82 Tex.Crlm. 449, 199 S.W. 811 

~?~V~?%en there Is room for construction, mandatory or permissive words are to be given the meaning that will best express 

legislative Intent. 53 Tex.Jur.26, 29, Statutes, Sec. 16. 

Prior to 1963, the statutory requisites for a local 

,option petition under Article 666-32 were: 

11 . . . The petition so iSSued shall clearly 

state the issue to,be voted upon in such election, 

which shall be the sam'e issue as that set out in 

the application; . . .' 

-1581- 
Honorable Charles A. Allen, Page 2 (C-332) 

Under this provision It was not required that the Issue be 

stated in any particular language, statutory or otherwise. The 

Legislature, authorized some latitude of statement, limited only 

by the requirement that the issue be o~learl 

---JD#. 

stated. See Hutaon 

v. Smith, 191 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.Civ.App. 

In 1963, however, the Legislature amended the statutes-. 

by stating the exact language to be used on a local option petltion (Article 666-32, above quoted). We feel that by so doing, 

the Legislature Intended to eliminate the latitude allowed under 

the prior law. 

In light of the foregoing, we hold that the language 

in paragraph 5, Section 32 of Article 666 is mandatory. To hold 

otherwise would be to hold the 1963 amendment to Article 666-32 

of no consequence. 

SUMNARY 

The ,language of Article 666-32, Vernon's 

Penal Oode, which prescribe0 the form of a petltlon for a local option election; 18 mandatory, 

not directory. 

ReSpectfully submitted, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

BSC/lh 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMNITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Howard Fender 

Mary K. Wall 

John Reeve8 

George Black 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Roger Tyler 

-1582-