OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

-c.yIla 

-- 

Bonorabl~ Bwl Ilrittaln 

County Auditor 

San ratriolo u6wstr 

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, emldent on the faoe ot 

tihe ln6txuwat, lo the faot that mmy of th8 signatures. such a8 hut3tmnd ana wife, 8on or dawhtec, 

bar the handwriting of only one xmnber of the 

fklUllP. The number of signer8 on the pstitlone l# 

lneuffiolent to oonstltute 10 per oent of the qualirlsa property taxpaying 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 scheme used In order to get the ausrlolent I number O? slgner8, for Iu IIU& In~tanaes the 

pereon olroulatlng the p8tltlon reque8tsd the 

slmer to align the name8 of other member8 or 

thm rtidms.~ 

The following que8tlona hare arisen out ot the above 

I 

rtnte of raatirr, and upon which OUT opinion is requeatedr 

i 

1. “Whether petitions oiroulated ln reyeral 

parts, rather than as a uult, is a valid petition, 

oven though It was attached together at the time 

i 

f 

2. “(6) Whether a petition showing dealgn, 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 ellmlnated In counting the numF- ber neoesnarp for 10 per oent, or whether the un- 

& authorized nemes only should be ell&Ina ted?” 

3. Whether algnere may 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. De tit Ion?” 

In anewer to your flrstqusotlon, we advlre that in 

r opinion petitIons olroulated In several parts other than 

F: !f~ a unit, will oonstltute the 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 ldentloal aueatlon. DrOYided they am 

mw l-0. Rudd, es 24 63, the Court of Clvll Apyeala 

mild, with rerarence to d queetlon 8Imller to that submitted 

ia the instant g&tie, the t a petition ‘biroulated in sight 

Darts aud attaohed at the tine of filing oonstltuted, but one 

DWtion. The same aubjeot matter appearing in the heading 

’ eFioh of the eight parts being the same nnd aubaequently 

riled at the same time wee h6ld euiilolent to authorize the 

Qourt to make the neoesearp orders pursuant thereto. 

468 
Honorable Burl Brlttaln, paae #S 

With roierenoe to'your question (a) under 2, we 

think that 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 dlraotad datsnnlnsrr 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 unauthorlaed slgnaturse, 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 genuine slgwaturea cxf qualiiled property 

taxpaying voter8 ror any purpose, and ow think that the CommIarlonars' Court rrould ba aotIng olaerlp wlthln its dI8oretlon in 

ellxlnatlng unauthorized nam88 and elgnaturee irom any petition 

presented to it tar eotlon thereon. Where the oftioar with 

whom It has been filed ha8 authority to hear and datermIne it8 

luiflola~y and validity, his deoif~lon thereon la rlnal unlearn 

8uoh dkolslon bae been fraudulent Or corruptly nmde 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 discretion nor reaoha deolalon 

%predloated upon fraud, or k&at auoh authority ha8 any desire 

$0 eliminate from a petition elgnaturee of quatied electors 

k%ltlmatsly plaued thereon* 

We are or the oplnlon that the algners of a ~patItlOn 

8ay withdraw their uamea after the petition has been flled at 

Uw time before offioial aotlon thereon has been taloan, and 

that the ?mnner,oi aoaotilpllshIng such withdrawal raqulras no 

Prtloular foncallty. In the aase of Stats vs. F&apart, I.22 

1. E. 99, it was stated that - 

WUuleas provided othcrwlse by statute, olaotors v&o hav& xkgned a petition my 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 withdrawal the 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,