### OFFlCEOFTHi **ATTORNEY** OENERAL~C&'EXAS **-AUSTIN**

Bonorablo C. 0. Nurdoch CoulltT Attorney Hermrd county aenard,TCX88

qurlIfI8d

who hold8 any offlue OS
or 

### eitherthe un1tod at8t.r 

### In **8ny** 

### clt7 or town **In thi8** 

*I &'&Or the oplnlon **that** a **deputy** rhorlff OmOt 80-8 L8 **c&inVn Of**  **the EXeOUtiV8**  **COr** Bitt.8 Of a OOUXit~l 

### hwever, It i8 9 UDhr8tmdlng tht 

### If one 

### voro to do 80, If 

### thare vercno lrregularltIe8, or fraud, la the holdlag of 

### l leotlona, 

### the dOOtiOn8 vould 

### be valid.

-Honorable C. 0. Murdoch, Page 2

"ChestnutYE. Wells, 278 3. W. 465: 280 9. w. 351 oayle VI.Alexander, 'i'5 3. h'.(al1 706; savage vn. umphrlon, 118 3.v. 893."

It vi11 be observed that the pertinent words of the statute you cite (Article 2940, R. C. S.), and vhich ve emphanice,Are an follovsl

ë0 l l nor 8hrll anyone Sot ae ohalrnn

any off108 of prarlt 

### or tru8t under l l l *hIa State, l e l."

The 

### prl.wwyirotor to be deterrlnrd In ansuerlng your que8tIonan 8tated, 18 

### whether the plain tenor OS 

### theabove 8peoiallyquoted and l apha8iSed vord8 of the 8tatute are to be con8Id8I'ed

aS 

### mt%Adatory

OC dIX%otoz'y. IA the ea8e of 0ayle YE. Alexander, (Tex.Clv. App.) 75 

### S.W. (36) 706, at 

### p. 708, the :dI8tIUOtiOiX

botVMn the **tV0** temn a8 applied t0 Artlole 2940 10 Stated thU8ly:

** l l, &-tOly pFOVi8iOn **in a**  **8tat** ute 18 one, the 0ml88i0n to follw vhloh rendem the prooeeding to vhIoh It relate8 lllegrl **aad** void, While a **di.l ’** **OOtO~ prOVi8iOA**  18 OAe, the
obeemanee Of rhiUh I8 XlOt A8Oe88aw t0 the Validity of the prooeeding. **A** 8tatutemy be lWldatOry In SOm8 X'e8WOt8 and dIreOtOrJ in Oth8P8. 59 **c. J.,**  **p.** 107~, **8** 63001 owrier v. ca8tock, 108 Ark. 515, 159 S. W. 1097, par. 3; Hoaklng Power Co. v. HuI-I~oA, 20 Ch.Io **App.** 135, 153 **A. E.**  155, 156, **par.** 1; Deibert v. Rhoden. 291 ?a. 550, l&O A. 515, 516, 517,

Parr. 2, 3. 8ad 4. There 18 no unIver8il rule 

### or sblolute te8t by which direoto~ **pro** vlslon8 in s 8trtutemy in all oirouwtanae8 be dI8tInguIahed from those vhioh are mandatory, but In the QetermInatIon of thir **qUe8tiOXL,** a8 every **Other qUe8tiOn**  **Of 8tatUtOTI**  **OOli8tNOtiOP,**Honorable C. 0. Murdoch, Page 3

be given a manclatorysigAifIaanae to effeat the legislative intent. On the other hand, the language of a statute,hovever mandatory in form,may be deeasd dlreatory whenever fhe leglrslatlve

purpore OUI beat be carried out by SUOb UOA8tPUOtiOA. 59 c. J., PP. 1072. 1073, I 6311 Burton v. McOulm (Tex. Clv. App.) 3 S.U. (?d) 576, 583, par. 15s Haman City, II. dc'0. R. Co. v. Roche8ter 

### Independent School Diet. (Tex. Clv. App.) 292 9. Y. 964, 965, 

### par. 1; Valley Bask v. Mlcolm, ?3 Arls. 395, 204 P. 307, 311, par. 4; People lx rel. Tho4~80n T. San Borxurdho llighSohool Dl8t., per8. 3 8Bd 4. 62 Cal. App. 67, 216 P. 959,

he legl8laUve iAte& In 8~-
aotIa#t the art1 

### e under OoMideration -8 8videAtlY to re8trlot th8 .8eleotioA of l leotian officer8 to those vho vere free from thq 8

or interer

a failure to pq l poll tax.- 30 f8r a8 the 8eleo8uOh rituatloa Is prec!ent;din tbI8 case. But 8hotid the prOVI8IOA8 of 8aId artiole In that pha8e of Its appliartlon be held maMatorT, It doe8 not Moea88rlly follov that vhea a **per8oa** nund In said **artlole** has been 8eleoted a8 821 eleatlon offloer for a pertioular 

### votlag pmOiPOt, snd his 8eleOtiOn ha8 A& been a88ailed but bar been soquie8oed IA w th8 qualified electors of auoh preoinot by partlolprting IA the eleatlouheld therein, **and** the vote8 os8t In suoh preolnot have **been** fairly and correotly oountcd md tabulated aad return thereof duly made, Mmt euoh eleotlon a8 to nald precinct should, rolely by 

### reasonof the pertlolpetlon of such el8CtiOA offioer iA holding the am.. ..,

**. ’**  Honorable C. 0. Uurdooh. **Page** 4

be declared void, the returns thereof exoluded from the 04nv4aa of the votes mat In said elactlon in the entire county, 8nd tha voters of suchpreolmt thereby ln effeot dlafmnchlsed." -(Emph4alaourn).



### In the above oaae, 

### OayleaadAlexunlar**ware** opposing caadId4tea for the office of a8aea8or And oolleotor of tuea
or xcLenllAn

County. After the election, the o~nvA88 of return8 showed Aleunder tha **VlAAar,** aad 0ayle rought **to** have the 8lectlon in low **boxes** of the oouut~ **deolmed** A nullity on the ground **that** 0ertAi.n preoiuot election OffiCIdL8vare dlaqrullfled to rot. Of the ohAllenged

### predwt officers

### of eleotlon, the trIA1 oourt found thAt four ven 8ohool **truteea** at the tlma or the l

leetlon; thAt one aAn hold A *purported AppoIntBent * a8 **deputy** 8herlff,but hod never tAkAn the orth 

### nor recalved oompena4tIon 8s l uoh offloer; rrd that threehad been aotlngas 

### deputytax aaae8mora for 

### Alexander, the appellee, fromJanuary 

### to I(ayof the **year** of the election,vhlah vaa held inJuly.

The court **furtbsr** found th4t th8 l leetlon ~88 

### fairly andhonsrtly held; that the aeleotlon of the 4bovementioned electionOffIceP8 ~68 not fFaUdUleAt1~bmqht about; that 

### their nerViOebid AOt 088t 8U8piOiOn Or 

### doubt UpOn th8 I'OStit Of tb 

### eleotianf

And thAt the votera pArtIaipAtIn@ **in** the **eloctlon** rhould IlOt b. di8f?UtOhi8ed beOAU8e Of #U&S 88l’VlCe.

In Addition to the above quoted dI88ertAtiOll upon *m8ndatorf **and** ***dIreotorf** provIaIona of 

### the 8tetute,theUAOO Court of Civil AppeAlI, In AffIraIng the trlrl court, 8180 relied upon theprlnolple l

tAted In the earlier oaae of &VW vs. Uaphrlea, (Tex.01~. ADD.) 118 8. Y. 893, wherein the loo41 optlan l leotlon
under aon8IdentIon 1m8 upheld derpite the faot thAt A olty Alderman **aoted** AS 4n l

leotlon judge, beeau8e 4nother of the JuQer 1~8 not dIrqu4lIfIed. Pointing out th4t 

### in thependingcasethem


### vereIA 

### eachvoting preoinot, in addition to the obrllenged offlalal

### other judgea and alerka p4rtloIprtlng therein, the S4v4ge
vs.Umphrlea rule ~48 4pprored by the Y4co Court in the Oayle vs. ~lehnder case, aupra.

Upon 

### the queatlon before ~8, ve think It appropriate, 4apaalallyin viev of Bour cIt4tIon or the oa80, to quote from avage v. Umphrlen (11 8. U. 893, at **p.** 901):ffonorable C. 0. Humloah, Page 5

“The **general** rule IS thAt Statutory provialone regulating 

### the conducting of public electlons, ifnot uule nandetory by **the** axpreaa teraa of the l&v, will be oonatrued 

### 6s so far directory

### that the l leotlonwill not be mill- ' flea by UN Irre~larltie8, not frAudulentlY brought 

### About, when 

### the departwe from the pmaorlbed method **was** not so great 8a to throv A 8ubatAntIAl

### doubtoa the I%8Ult, And vh8re It la not shorn that thp~ vaa any obstacle to 4 rrir And free expn8sl.m of the will of the **electors.** 8184k on Interpretationof b%VS, p. 353. It la said thott 'There la nothing better settled than thst the.wtr of election officera de facto,who AW in under color of election
or appointaent,

### am A8 valid. a8 to thirdprrtie8 And the pUbllo, a8 those of 

### offloern de f - The doctrine tlvrt elector8 may be dI8- rFZhinea becAUSe one 

### or eon of the judge8
or lnapeotor8 0s election did not poa8eaa all the qUdififJ@titXi8 requlmd by 18~ rinds
no support 

### In the deoi8Iona 0s AUY judIoI81 trIbune.1 15 cyc. 311. @me t here if the Allegationa in Appellmtr r a 8wndment

8e he, ln violetion of the tit?, aoted A0 A ju@e Of the election, It ohotidbe deOiAF8d do 8.d Void A8 t0 that pZWO%ILOt. It 8eema 

### to us thAt 

### the qwatlon 48 to the vslidity 

### or i.XWA~idityof the election should be determIned As though he hod not **hated** at all, 

### in the 

### absenceof my allegAtion that he did MythIng th6t v0rrlatend to change the x-e8tit. Jhth18

viw the lleotfon IA that pmclnot shouldbe regerded As having been pmaided **over** by only one judge, for tha coUntY ocnumlealonsra'

court v4a required in voting;...b~-.

. .‘

. , ,

Honorabls C. q. &mlooh, Page 

### 6

preclnctr,

### vbw8 therevore 1088 than 100 vot- 

### .era vho bndprld tholr poll tax mid received -'their

aertlflo&tes of exeqptlon, to appoint tvo **reputable,men.** vho vere qualified votsrr, a8 Judge8of the election, aad It vi11 be preaured tha$,ltperformd thl8 duty. We
lm not pAp‘Nd, therefore, to hold that, booau8e oae of the 9artlos sppolntod a8 Judge **vaa prohIbited**  **m** the lav from rotlng a8 auoh, vould vitiate, 80 ae to 

### rendernull, the electlon ae to etmh

### praolnot,p-aided over by the atber

judge,

vho, in the

l baenoe of an 

### l lleghtlon

to the oontruy, mu8tbe preeumed 

### a8 &mpeteat to rots fop to 80holdvould be 

### to df8frubahl8e 

### all th8 quallflodeleotors vho voted rt ula 

### preolnot,vlthout it apperring that the lleetlon va8 in any **vay** affeOted br being preerlded over by one judge, instead of tvo a8 requiredby the 8tatute. 

### We therefOl’S OVWPUh tb a88i@tMllt. ’ (&E9hl&818 OUl’8. )

Your referonoe to the oa8e or Che8tIiUt v8. Well8 var noted;Ye flad tvo di8tinat oa8e8 on the cited page8 of the South Ue8tem Report*. Cit.AFT.) 

### 278 9.W. 565, - fi.P8t 18 che8tnut T8. we118, (TSX. the wooad 18 Cheatnutt ‘18. Uelh, (Tex. Cl*. App.) 280 

### 8.U. 351. Although the 8~8 partle8 89- 

### peerlltlgent,thenumben of the oasesare dlfierent8ad the7 89lWU’ t0 ba 8epUk 8pit8. In any event, the Court of Civil A9~18 ia each oaqo pOint8 out that the electionsheld vere "8peOla.l"

once 8nd th8t the prorl8lons of vhat fe nOV codified 88 A&101. 2940, Rotlred Clril Btatutes, being E part of the Tern11 Rlootlon Lar, did not apply. We believe a further 8tudy Of the oa8e8 vfll aosrtinoe you of their lnnppllaabllltyhere.
he, al80 an n8

### Y alal" (lb. civ.App. 

### l leotlon8,the 01808ofwalkerv8.I(obler,

fledaue8tloar) 105 8.W. 61; Ibid, (Sup.Ct.,nn8veringoerti103 8.W. 990;Xx mrte Ander8on, (Tex.Cr. A99.) 102 3. Y. 

### 727~8111 v8. Smlthvllle Independent school Dl8trlat. (Tax.Clv. App.) 239 8. Y. 987, 9. 991; Hlller WI. Tucker, (Tex. Civ. App.) 119 8. U. 

### (2d)g?.

In the 

### aa8.e of Ruff V8. Duffleld, (Tex. 01~. App.) 351 3. W. 298, there ta8 (LCOdXJ8t of an lleotlou held to fill the office of oountr u&d dl8trlot olerk of Wfllrcy Countr at the gmmal lleatfoa~ The votes of flrteen (15)percrone vere objected to beamlee the pre8idlng offlcer at the box vhere theEonorable C. 0. Xurdoah, Page 7

persons votedV&s also act143 aa 9oatmnster, end he alonevrote hla name on the back of eaoh of the ballots. Holding that the .vote8 vere properly alloved the 00Urt 8tm88Od the point that the prerlding judge **va8** not the poetslaster"butmerely taking
care of the office until other arruyasenta vere Ilide."

The mO8t **lWOellt** 018e **Ve** haYe found 18 that Of ge8bItt YE. Coburn, (Tex. Clv.App.) 143 3. w. (26) 279. Oppcalng cendldate8 fer the DemocratlonO@liatlOa for cmnty Com188iOner became partle8 to a oOdX8t lollovIng the 88COnd 9rlIBary of 1940. The faot8 and oontentlom on the point 8ufflolentlJ l 9pear in the follovlag quotation froa the oplnlonr

"Appellantcontend8 that all of the VOtO8 CJa8t

at the %IIie VOthg box, vhere 

### l ppellw 

### reoelreda **va8t** 

### Mjorftr thereof, 8hotidhave been held Illegal and not counted beoaure tbs 

### partrvho sated a8 the pre8lding **judge of**  **8aid** voting box **had** not **been** properly appointed the pre8idIng juQe thereOf. It dOe8 not appear that 8ueh 

### party had been eXpre88lr 8electedby the IkroCr8t10 Executive Comalttee of the aounty to hold tha election on the occasion in question. Howver, it doe8 **appear** that he va8 the mBOorat10 ooa1tteemm frcm that preolnct and that It ha been the ou8ton **for year8**  for l aoh preolnot ahalraan of said county to 8erve a8 the preetdlag judge of the election ln hi8 preolnot. The rule 8eeIU8to be that the 8tatute8vlth .referUme to the m8nnet of 

### l

9polatIug eleotlon ofricer am dlmotory end that Irregularltla8 therein vi11 not affeot the validity of the election. In SUoh Oa8e8 vhere them 18 a0 prote8t on the part oi the VOter8, the will b8 held to have ratified the llleg eI appointmnt or uaauthorlred a88um9tion of ruthority of the party vho 8erve8 a8 8uoh deotlon judge. HI11 v. iialthvllle Ind. School Dist.. Tex. Clv. **App.,** 239 3. U. 9871 L&aver v. State. 27 Tex. Clr. App. 453. 66 3.Y. 256. It doe8 not appear that there va8 q protest on the **part** or the **voter8** vlth reieronae to the proaiding judge la the voting box in Question.
we thereforeh&d that the oourt did not em'.

Honorable C. 0. Murdoch, Page 8

in refu8lng to hold es illegal the votes counted at 8PldDonle votIAg 

### box.”

Froa the above l

UthOriti8e and other8 u8mlned:by us, ve think it extremely doubtful that the same 

### realt vould be attainedvhere a aounty ebalrma~'sell

### 7lblllty shouldbe ohallewed. Inevery ca8e l

xamlaed 

### by u8 

### and after 

### exten8lve searahve havenot foaadon0 l.n~olvlng a county ehalmen 1, the COwt8 

### have emid 

### upan ooatertr 

### belngbroughtafter the l l atlon, 

### that- burdmalW8t8WOa OOllte8tMt8 t0 8hWxt the **lU8Ult8** of the l



### leotlonvere 

### affeottior ohangea bT the 1rreguLa~ departure from the 8tatuto. we can aoaoeive that 8uoh 8 tie vould be oonaldend 8afe and 8ound insofar a8 applicable to elsatlon judge8 or alerk8vho8e dutIe8 am largely 8ilnl8terlal and vho8c vork oar be oheaked by other per8on8 vhore l llglblllt~
vould not be IA que8tloa,vhema8 a different cono1u8lo~Eight vell be reached IA the ea8e of a county chalnun, the nature of vhoac **dUtia8** aa fixed by lav mae88arlly involvem8ny act8 of OffiOi~ dlroretlon, a8 Veil 88‘Other 8Ote Of mfnfrteril~ ~MAct1aAing. We deer it uDaeae88ary to attempt to li8t here 811 of the88,but ru??loe 

### it topointout that he lo 

### thepmnlding offleer 

### over all meting8 of the ootmt~ comnlttee; he 18 ?urAl8hed IA l dv8Aoe of eleotlon8 the llrt8 of qualified votere;he ia the recipient of the return8 br l leotlon and custodian of every one Of the bbllOt8 OtL8t bt the e&OtioA; he dOOl&re8 the aW8tit,md certifie8 nw to 

### otherproper OfffCibl8; he pm8lde8 over all OOUaty 

### ooPVentiOA8; he 18 **by VirtUa**  **Of** hi8 OffieO an eX-OffiCiO ' 

### mmber of all dI8trict l 

### xeautlvecommitteea 

### o?hi8 party; 

### he colleot8 and disburse8 the expeme Monet needed to conduct the prlmarles;he l

ppolnt8 the preainct presldlng judgeavlth the approval of the ueautlve oomlttee; IA geIura1 election8he may ~PPOfXLt

8U9WTi8Or8 -- In **rhort,** he 18 one of the moostIBpOrtaAt fogs in the rehlnerj of our election ey8ter. Ylth ju8t a little slip'here 

### aad a~ rrlnadvertenae" there, he can, un.le88of UAqUe8tlonable Integrity and con8olentlou8 aeration 

### to thehigh

trU8t lmpo8ed upoa hla, in m and various vayr dlONpt the order17 8nd boaert prooedum aontelplatedby the levmekere to 1Aew the purIt7 of the ballot -- the strongest comer atone in omr 8truotum of a ire8 government.

A d.eputTl

herlff certainlyholds an “office of profit
**Or trust** **”** under the lava of this State. He 18 ao 

### moognlsed by both the 8tatutow 8.ndthe case lav of TeXa8. Be 1s appointed by the 8heriff, to 'oontlnue In offloe" during the Plea8ure of his prlnolpebl he haa paver md authorltr to perform all the act8 8~d duties of the sheriff hluelf; he mu8t take the offi~lel. . . l!,norabls C. 0. Murdoch, Page 9

oath. See Revised civil 3XfUtC%. ArtlClen 6809, 6&o, 3884, 3891, 3902, 31024 Code of Crlmlnal Procedure,Articles 30, 44; M:llervs. AlexnAder. 13 Tex. 497, 506: Tovne vs. Harris, 13 Tex. fiO'1,

512; Ytnte vs. Brooks, 42 Tax. 6?; Murray WI. State, 0 "'s.U. (26) 274; 34 Tex. Jur. 601.

It aeara 80 self-evidentan to be trite to say that a deputy sherlrfha8 a vltrl and per8onal lnterert IA ths outcome of every election a?fectIAghi8 prinolpal. Hi8 IlaB lay 88 V411 be on the ballot, for vlth the defeat of his sheriffhe ca88es t3be 8uch officer, 108lagAOt only hit title and office but his emOhEeAt8 aa veil.

Ue agree vlth your oonolu8lon that a deputy sheriff la not qualified to 8eme aa 8 oount.7 ohalrmn of the Democratic party.

We further believe that under the authoritiesheralA di4CU88Od,he could unque8tIonabljbe ousted from a4rVing or attemptingto 8erve in 8uch oapaoity. Upon the propositionyou assertthat if one 

### vere to do 80, the eleotlcum vould be valid, absentproof Of Irre~arltIea or fraud, ve expmer no opinion at thi8 time due to the utter laok of any such aa4ehevlng appeared a8 ooning before any appellate court of thla State. It is dlfflault for u8 to oonaelve of the electorate permlttlng the

- questionto reach that stage, 

### or for the officer In question, whoeverhe may be, to Fnalst upon it.

Yours very truly

BenjaminUoodall .L_. Assistant

BW:RS