OFFlCEOFTHi ATTORNEY OENERAL~C&'EXAS 

-AUSTIN 

Bonorablo C. 0. Nurdoch 

CoulltT Attorney 

Hermrd county 

aenard, TCX88 

qurlIfI8d 

who hold8 any offlue OS 

or either the 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 COrBitt.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 

"Chestnut YE. Wells, 278 3. W. 465: 

280 9. w. 351 

oayle VI. Alexander, 'i'5 3. h'. (al 1 706; 

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 

a ny off108 of prarlt or tru8t under l l l 

*hIa State, l e l ." 

The prl.wwy irotor to be deterrlnrd In ansuerlng your 

que8tIon an 8tated, 18 whether the plain tenor OS the above 

8peoially quoted 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 8tatute 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 8tatute my 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~ provlslon8 in s 8trtute my 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 manclatory sigAifIaanae 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 l x rel. Tho4~80n T. San Borxurdho 

lligh Sohool 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;d in 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 eleatlou held 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 reason of 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 such preolmt thereby ln effeot dlafmnchlsed." 

-(Emph4ala ourn). 

In the above oaae, Oayle aad Alexunlar 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 OffiCIdL8 vare 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 three had been 

aotlng as deputy tax aaae8mora for Alexander, the appellee, 

from January to I(ay of the year of the election, vhlah vaa held 

in July. 

The court furtbsr found th4t th8 l leetlon ~88 fairly 

and honsrtly held; that the aeleotlon of the 4bove mentioned 

election OffIceP8 ~68 not fFaUdUleAt1~ bmqht about; that their 

nerViOe bid 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, the UAOO Court 

of Civil AppeAlI, In AffIraIng the trlrl court, 8180 relied upon 

the prlnolple 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 the pending case them 

vere IA each voting 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, 

4apaalally in viev of 

B 

our 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, if not uule nandetory by the axpreaa 

teraa of the l&v, will be oonatrued 6s so far 

directory that the l leotlon will 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 doubt oa 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 Interpretation of 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 third prrtie8 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 ohotid be 

deOiAF8d do 8.d Void A8 t0 that pZWO%ILOt. 

It 8eema to us thAt the qwatlon 48 to the 

vslidity or i.XWA~idity of the election should 

be determIned As though he hod not hated at 

all, in the absence of my allegAtion that he 

did MythIng th6t v0rrla tend to change the x-e8tit. Jh th 1 8 viw the l leotfon IA that p mclnot should be 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 there vore 1088 than 100 vot- 

.era vho bnd prld tholr poll tax mid received 

-'their aertlflo&tes of exeqptlon, to appoint 

tvo reputable,men. vho vere qualified votsrr, 

a8 Judge8 of the election, aad It vi11 be 

preaured tha$,lt performd thl8 duty. We 

l m 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 render null, the electlon ae to etmh praolnot, p-aided over by 

the a tb er judge, vh o , in the l baenoe of an 

l llegh tlto othe n oontruy, mu8t be preeumed 

a8 &mpeteat to rots fop to 80 hold vould be 

to df8frubahl8e all th8 quallflod eleotors 

vho voted rt ula preolnot, vlthout it apperring that the l leetlon va8 in any vay affeOted 

br being preerlded over by one judge, instead 

of tvo a8 required by 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- 

peer lltlgent, the numben of the oases are dlfierent 8ad the7 

89lWU’ t0 ba 8epUk 8pit8. In any event, the Court of Civil 

A9~18 ia each oaqo pOint8 out that the elections held 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 lnnppllaablllty here. 

he, al80 an n8 

Y 

alal" 

(lb. civ. App. 

l leotlon8, the 01808 of walker v8. I(obler, 

fled aue8tloar) 

105 8. W. 61; Ibid, (Sup. Ct., nn8vering oerti103 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 (L COdXJ8t of an l leotlou held to fill 

the office of oountr u&d dl8trlot olerk of Wfllrcy Countr at 

the gmmal l lea tfo a ~ The votes of flrteen (15) percrone vere 

objected to beamlee the pre8idlng offlcer at the box vhere the 
Eonorable C. 0. Xurdoah, Page 7 

persons voted V&s also act143 aa 9oatmnster, end he alone vrote 

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 "but merely 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 Democratlo nO@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 

"Appellant contend8 that all of the 

VOtO8 CJa8t at the %IIie VOthg box, vhere 

l ppellw reoelred a va8t Mjorftr thereof, 

8hotid have been held Illegal and not counted beoaure tbs partr vho 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 8elected by 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 8eeIU8 to be 

that the 8tatute8 vlth .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 therefore h&d that the oourt did not em' 
. 

Honorable C. 0. Murdoch, Page 8 

in refu8lng to hold es illegal the votes 

counted at 8Pld Donle votIAg box.” 

Froa the above l UthOriti8e and other8 u8mlned:by us, 

ve think it extremely doubtful that the same realt vould be 

attained vhere a aounty ebalrma~'s ell 

7 

lblllty should be ohallewed. In everca8e y l xamlaed by u8 and after exten8lve 

searah ve have not foaad on0 l.n~olvlng a county ehalmen 

1 

, the 

COwt8 have emid upan ooatertr belng brought after the l l atlon, 

that - burdma lW8t8 WOa OOllte8tMt8 t0 8hWxt the lU8Ult8 

of the l leotlon vere affeotti or 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 alerk8 vho8e 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 involve m8ny 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 to point out that he lo the pmnlding 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 other proper OfffCibl8; he pm8lde8 over all 

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

mmber of all dI8trict l xeautlve committeea o? hi8 party; he 

colleot8 and disburse8 the expeme Monet needed to conduct the 

prlmarles; he l ppolnt8 the preainct presldlng judgea vlth the 

approval of the ueautlve oomlttee; IA geIura1 election8 he may 

~PPOfXLt 8U9WTi8Or8 -- In rhort, he 18 one of the moost IBpOrtaAt 

fogs in the rehlnerj of our election ey8ter. Ylth ju8t a little 

slip' here aad a~ rrlnadvertenae" there, he can, un.le88 of UAqUe8tlonable Integrity and con8olentlou8 aeration to the high 

trU8t lmpo8ed upoa hla, in m and various vayr dlONpt the 

order17 8nd boaert prooedum aontelplated by the levmekere to 

1Aew the purIt7 of the ballot -- the strongest comer atone 

in omr 8truotum of a ire8 government. 

A d.eputT l herlff certainly holds an “office of profit 

Or trust” under the lava of this State. He 18 ao moognlsed by 

both the 8tatutow 8.nd the 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:ller vs. 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-evident an to be trite to say that a 

deputy sherlrf ha8 a vltrl and per8onal lnterert IA ths outcome 

of every election a?fectIAg hi8 prinolpal. Hi8 IlaB lay 88 V411 

be on the ballot, for vlth the defeat of his sheriff he ca88es 

t3 be 8uch officer, 108lag AOt 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 authorities heralA 

di4CU88Od, he could unque8tIonablj be ousted from a4rVing or 

attempting to 8erve in 8uch oapaoity. Upon the proposition you 

assert that if one vere to do 80, the eleotlcum vould be valid, 

absent proof Of Irre~arltIea or fraud, ve expmer no opinion 

at thi8 time due to the utter laok of any such aa4e hevlng appeared a8 ooning before any appellate court of thla State. It 

is dlfflault for u8 to oonaelve of the electorate permlttlng the 

- question to reach that stage, or for the officer In question, 

whoever he may be, to Fnalst upon it. 

Yours very truly 

Benjamin Uoodall 

.L_. Assistant 

BW:RS