The Attorney General of Texas 

May 8, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Chet Brooks 

Chairman 

Opinion No. H- 1163 

Senate Committee on Human Resources 

State Capitol 

Austin, Texas 767B 

Dear Senator Brooks: 

Re: Whether secret bsllots 

conducted by a governing body 

violate the Open Meetings Act. 

You indicate that a school district board of trustees recently met in an 

open session and elected officers for the board; however, the election of one 

of the officers was done by secret ballot. You ask if a secret ballot taken at 

a public meeting constitutes a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 

The Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., provides: 

Sec. Z.(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or 

specifically permitted in the Constitution, every 

regular, special, or called meeting or session of every 

governmental body shsll be open to .the public; . . . . 

Q) Whenever any deliberations or any portions of a 

meeting are closed to the public as permitted by this 

Act, no final action, decision, or vote with regard to 

any matter considered in the closed meeting shall be 

made except in a meeting which is open to the public 

. . . . 

The Open Meetings Act is to be liberally construed to effect its purpose “of 

assuring that the public has the opportunity to be informed concerning the 

transactions of public business.” Toyah Independent School District v. PecosBarstow Independent School District, 466 S.W.2d 377, 360 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

San Antonio 1971, no writ). 

A similar question was presented to the Illinois Attorney General in 

1933. The Illinois statute provided that a board was required to “sit with open 

doors.” ‘In construing that statute the Illinois Attorney General said 

p. 4706 
Honorable Chet Brooks - Page 2 (H-1163) 

This is a plain legislative declaration against secrecy of any 

kind or character entering into the deliberation of the 

county board. . . . Of what avail is an open door to the 

public if the proceedings are secret. The eye can see, the 

ear can hear, but secrecy conceals all. It is no advantage to 

the citizen to see e member write a name secretly on a 

ballot unless he is privileged to reed what is thereon written. 

lllinois Attorney General Opinion No. 246 (May 4, 1933). This continues to be the 

law in Illinois. Illinois Attorney General Opinion No. S-917 (June 20, 1975). At least 

three other states have reached the conclusion that a secret ballot violates a 

statute requiring open meetings of governmental bodies. Florida Attorney General 

Opinion 073-264 (July 17, 1973); Oregon Attorney General Opinion No. 7ll5 

(October 11, 1974); Virginia Attorney General Opinion to the Honorable Richard R. 

G. Hobson (August 9, 1977); see Bassett v. Braddock, 262 So.2d 425 @la. 1972) (four 

judge majority suggests, butdoes not hold, that a secret ballot is illegal; remaining 

three judges specifically indicate that a secret ballot violates the Florida 

Government in the Sunshine law). Cf. Kansas Attorney General Opinion No. 75-293 

(July 15, 1975) (holds ~that an openmeetings statute which specifically prohibits 

taking binding action by secret ballot prohibits a secret ballot ,for the election of a 

school board officer). Contra Massachusetts Attorney General Opinion to Governor 

John A. Volpe (July 19, ‘m 

We concur in the conclusion reached by attorneys general of the majority of 

states which have faced the question. The Open Meetings Act is designed to insure 

that decisions of public bodies are reached openly and that the public can observe 

the actions of their representatives. The secret ballot, when used to protect 

citizens when choosing their representatives, is a hallmark of a democratic system 

of government; but, when it is used to conceal e public official’s vote, it violates 

the fundamental tenet of an elected or appointed official’s ultimate accountability 

to the electorate. See generally 116 Cong. Rec. 25796-25616 (1970). We believe it is 

the antithesis of the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Thus, it is our 

opinion that the Open Meetings Act prohibits the use of secret ballots in meetings 

of governmental bodies. 

SUMMARY 

The use of a secret ballot in a meeting of a governmental 

body violates the Texas Open Meetings Act. 

p. 4707 
.’ , 

. 

Honorable Chet Brooks - Page 3 (B-1163) 

APPROVED: 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4708