Honorable Leo Presnell Couixty Attorney Gilmsr,

Texas

Dear sir: opinion HO. o-4546 .~
Re: Validity

of common school district election,

two of the electionofficers being wives of teachers and the other being e substitute teacher.

In yoin letter of A&i1 13, 1942, you outlinethe following facts:

You "In a School Trusteeelection held in a collppo~l

school district of this comty on the firstSaturday In April, the three persons holding the election were women, two of whom were wives,~,of teachersin the school,and the other the wife~of the janitor inthe scheo$. done of the wives of e teacherhas served as substitute

t&tkU in the school~for a:period

of elevenweeks during this school term.

Yhere is no question as to the appointment of tPjese

women to hold the election'n& is there any question as to their not being qualified

voters of the district, thequestion merely being based upon the close ccmnections which they have with those operdkii&aiid conducting

the ef?,$i!q

of the school district."

.._ request

our opinionas 'UYwhether~~the elictio6

so held was a valid~one. ,I; “ ad:. ;

_ :, Article2746, Revise&Ci~il Statutes, praviaefy’ - ,_ ,:.i:
5aid trus*e$Y&jJ'appoint three (3) p&ons, qualified v&ers of the dis~~~f,i:ljfio~:shallhold. su~hTe+++ and make returns thereofto &i~iii-t$~$ees within fivs r!jy"M@ after such election,

and &id'~persons

13hallreceivCd txmpeneatioa foe their services the sum of One Doller ($1) each, to be Pd& out of the local funds of the schooldistrict where the election

was held.

. . If, at the time ana place for hol&ing such election, any or all of the persons so appointed to'holdsuch election are'absent

07 refuse to act, thenthe electors

present

my select,of

their number a person or parsons to act in the place of those absentor refasing to act."Hcolorable Leo Resnell, Page 2 (O-4546)

” The above statute

does not 

### aisqdify any of these personses ‘election of ficeik

. We refer to Article 2940, RevisedCivil Statutes, which sets out certain'disqualifications for electionjudges,clerks and supervisors. If that statute

appliesto cosunon

schooldistrict

electious,

a ToFt which'wedo not find it necessary to decide,it would not render this election 

### void. Certelnly

it would not disqualify the two aga@t.whom the only question

raised is that their husbands are $eachersin the school. Whether the substitute teacher,is

such an officeras would disqualify

her under Art$cle'29&0 is still another

point unnecessary

to determine.

The case.of

Millerv. Tucker, llg S.'W. (2) 92, involved the contestof
~a local optionelection. We quote therefrom:
"Appellees'

contentiti

that the election

was renderedInvalid becauseJ. Roy Lawson, the presiding off&r, we8 at the ssme the mayor of lkvten is also withoutmerit. There was no showing

or cont6ntlon

that the presence

of Mr. Lswso? as 

### prdaing ,offi+.in any way lmprope~,~.affected the result of the elect.ign.'~F&i objection

vas.maae~to

Mr. Lawson serving. The ele&i&&s~f+rly and honestly h&d and, so far & shown by the record;the~votes were correctly

counted

and returns accurately

made. Article2940,Vernon's Ann. Civ. St., is directory

only and an el&ian is not vitiated by the fact that the electi& $@&&ct,ti~:~xiT&~~ c&r tif;,k&hority did not possessthe required qualifications

in the absence of a showingof fraud or misconduct. Hill v. Sm1thville Independent

School Dist., Tex. Civ; ASP. 239 S-W. 987; Gaylev.'~ Alexander,

Tti. Civ. App. 75 S. W. (2) 706."
Supporting

the same principle

we cite:Bengetter v. Msrskell,

70 S. W. (2) 285; Geyle v:Alexander 75 S. W. (2) 706; Deaverv. State, ex rel. ~'ipp, 66 s. w. 256.

In our opinionthe,el&ion ia not invalid uuder the cirotrmstances which you relate.

Yours very truly APPRovm APR. 24, 1942 s/ GROVER- ATl'CRHEY6ZNERALOFTEXAS FlICST ASSISl!AWT ATTORWRY- s/ GlennR. ‘$ewis

APpF@VEDoPINIONcGMrrTEE BP B. w. B. CHAIRWAR '.By GlennR. Lewis Assistant GRL:E/ 

### law