OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN -c.yIla

--

Bonorabl~

Bwl Ilrittaln County Auditor San ratriolou6wstr glnton,

Temr " /---!A



### I

“‘ l’&ayf& 

## tlona

~: ,\ an k 

## appear to h6~e been obthaed in Mml wmwt, th8t ls , tbof were not taken aa a igdlrldual petltlon,but in 8ereral oopfw, to the varlou8 wrte of the oamty, aab when filed the ecweqzil

oqplss were attaohed together.
*A further lrrsgularlty,emldenton the faoe ot tihe ln6txuwat, lo the faot that mmy of th8 signatures. **such** a8 hut3tmnd ana wife, 8on or dawhtec, bar the handwritingof only one xmnber of the fklUllP.The **number**of signer8 on the pstitlone l# lneuffiolent

to oonstltute10 per oent of the qualirlsa propertytaxpaying toter8 unlaeo the irrsgurarity in algnaturerr just,mentloned

is oonuldsred

# 5

,Bmorable Burl Brlttaln, page #a

as valid. It appears that there we8 a design or schemeused In order to get the ausrlolent 

# I
number O? slgner8,for Iu IIU& In~tanaesthe pereon olroulatlngthe p8tltlon reque8tsd 

### the slmer to align

the name8 of other member8 **or** thm 

## rtidms.~
The 

### following

que8tlonahare arisen out ot the above

I rtnteof 

## raatirr,

and upon which OUT opinion is requeatedr

i 1. “Whetherpetitions oiroulatedln reyeral parts, rather than as a uult, is a valid petition, oven though It was attached togetherat the time 

## i f 2. “(6) Whether a petition showingdealgn, **rraud or**  a sohems on it8 faOe, bearfng forged au6 uaauthorized elg?laturee

Is void?”
I *(b) Whether the 

### signers mm and the unauthorized n-8 ebould be ellmlnatedIn counting the numF- ber neoesnarpfor 10 **per** oent, or whether the un- & authorizednemes only should be ell&Ina ted?” 3. Whether algneremay wIthdraw their nauwu I after the l;rsltitlon has been rllea, aither by strlkine off their rumis or riling a supplementary

### petitIoa asking t&t their name8 be w5.thdrawn from the i. Detit

Ion?”
In anewer to your flrstqusotlon, we advlre that in r opinionpetitIonsolroulated In several parts other than F: !f~ a unit, will oonstltutethe baels of e valid patltlon In B event that eaoh or the several pirta are headed 4th subantially the same matter,all ho?whIoh petition for 6n elsoon on tha .same

or ldentloalaueatlon.DrOYided they am

mw l-0.

Rudd, es 24 63, the Court of Clvll Apyeala mild,with rerarenceto d queetlon 8Imller to that submitted ia the instantg&tie, the t a petition ‘biroulated in sight Dartsaud attaohedat the tine of filing oonstltuted, but one DWtion. The same aubjeotmatter appearing in the heading ’eFioh of the eight parts being the same nnd aubaequently riledat the same time wee h6ld euiilolentto authorize the Qourtto make the neoesearporders pursuant thereto. 

### 468Honorable

Burl Brlttaln,

paae #S

With roierenoe to'your question (a) under 2, we thinkthat to stata the qua8tlOa la to anmar 

### it, tar the meson that 

### the law oontemplate8 that a4 

### petltlon to r0nn the baa18 of a legal eleotlon rhall be genuine 

### in every raepeot,

and that ii the authority to whom said petition la dlraotaddatsnnlnsrr it to 

### be a rcheme or a 

### fraud,or that It beam rorged and 

### unauthorlsed signa turer, 8uoh determluatlon



### la not subjaot to oollateral attaok. Thlr presents more a question or faot than or law, but it 8ecma elanantary

that if the petition shone deei-, fraud or eoheme and bears **fortpd** and unauthorlaedslgnaturse,it ia void ipso faoto.

In reply to question (b) of 2, wa advise that we know of no &thorlty exlating in the Conmla8lonere~ Court to ellmlnate **irom** a patition 

### genuineslgwatureacxf qualiiled

### property taxpaying

voter8 ror any purpose,and ow think that the CommIarlonars'

Court rrould

ba aotIng olaerlpwlthln its dI8oretlon in ellxlnatlng

unauthorized

nam88 and elgnatureeirom any petition presented

to it tar eotlon thereon. Where the oftioarwith whom It has been filed ha8 authority to hear and datermIne it8 luiflola~y and validity,his 

### deoif~lon thereon la rlnal unlearn 8uohdkolslon bae been fraudulentOr corruptlynmde **or** pmoured, Or tinleas ho has been ullty of an abuse ot dlacretlon. f 1 906 20 Corpus ilurla,

91; a 80 State vs. Orave8, 107 lf. E. 1018. It mat **be~ ‘** **assumad** that tha authority to whom apetition~lr ~~diraoted'will

not 

### abuse **their** discretionnor reaoha 

### deolalon %predloated

upon fraud, or k&at auoh authority

## ha8 any desire $0 eliminatefrom a petition elgnatureeof 

## quatied electors k%ltlmatsly plaued thereon*

We are or the oplnlon that the algners of a ~patItlOn 8ay withdraw their 

### uameaafter the petition has been flled at Uw time before offioialaotlon thereon has been taloan, and that the ?mnner,oi aoaotilpllshIng such withdrawalraqulras no Prtloular foncallty. In the aase of Stats vs. F&apart, I.22 1. E. 99, it was stated that -

WUuleasprovided othcrwlseby statute,olaotors v&o hav& xkgned a petitionmy withdraw their nemee berore offlola aation has bean taken thereon."Ionorable

Burl Brittain,pee k

lJI0 to staller effect is the case of Tmtten vs. Banovor, L2 Ghia C3tetc, 215; 20 Corpus Twi8, 95, wherein it wu8 mid : *If as a result of tho withdrawalthe petltion fails to aontaln e mquiSlte number of nen188 It should be di8cis8'30." Trusting that the foragoiag sattsfeatorilp answWs you! 1nqulry, we are

_

CECLS

.

APPROVEDDEC 18, 1940 A,