THE ATTORNEY GENEZUE 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable Oscar William Loyd, II Opinion No. JM-1133 

Criminal District Attorney 

P. 0. Box 216 Re: Certification of a 

Gilmer, Texas 75644 petition and financing 

of a local option election under the Alcoholic 

Beverage Code (RQ-1865) 

Dear Mr. Loyd: 

You ask two questions about local option liquor elections. Your first question concerns the interpretation of 

section 251.10 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code (the code). 

That section prescribes the requirements for counting 

signatures on a petition requesting a local option liquor 

election. Subsection (b) of that section provides: 

(b) No sianature mav be counted, either 

by the registrar or commissioners court, 

where there is reason to believe that: 

(1) it is not the actual signature 

of the purported signer: 

(2) the voter registration certificate number is not correct; 

(3) the voter registration certificate number is not in the actual handwriting of the signer: 

(4) it is a dualication either of a 

fl other 

sianature on the oetition; 

(5) the residence address of the 

signer is not correct or is not in the 

actual handwriting of the signer; or 

(6) the name of the voter is not 

signed exactly as it appears on the 

p. 5962 
Honorable Oscar William Loyd, II - Page 2 (JM-1133) 

official copy of the current list of 

registered voters for the voting year in 

which the petition is issued. (Emphasis 

added.) 

Specifically, you ask whether the language underlined above 

requires that each entry that appears to violate subsection 

(b)(4) is to be disregarded in determining the sufficiency 

of the petition signatures or whether the first entry in a 

questionable series may be counted as a valid signature. 

You offer the example of a voter who signs his name on a 

petition more than once, and ask whether the first entry is 

a "duplication." 

In an eailier opinion of this office, the provisions of 

section 251.10(b)(6) were determined to be unambiguous and 

mandatory. Attorney General Opinion JM-501 (1986). The 

registrar of voters has no authority to waive the signature 

requirements of that subsection. Id. By its terms, subsection (b) states that "BQ signature may be counted" under 

certain circumstances. We do not believe that the language 

prohibiting duplicative names or handwriting can reasonably 

be construed to allow the counting of the "original*' or 

first name in a series and to disallow the subsequent 

entries. The plain meaning of subsection (b)(4) is that 

each name that appears more than once and each name that 

appears to be written in the same handwriting is void. 

Several definitions that support our reading of subsection (b)(4) are found in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate 

Dictionary, which defines "duplicate" as: 

being the same as another . . . either of two 

things exactly alike and [usually] produced 

at the same time or by the same process 

. . . one that resembles or corresponds to 

another. 

Thus, it is our opinion that all of the signatures or names 

in a series that appear to violate subsection (b)(4) are to 

be disregarded in verifying a petition regardless of the 

order in which they may appear on the petition. 

Your second question relates to the payment of expenses 

in an election held pursuant to the code. Section 251.40 

provides that county expense is limited to the holding of 

only certain local option liquor elections per year. It 

also authorizes the county to obtain reimbursement for 

election costs in cities or towns within the county. 

P. 5963 
Honorable Oscar William Loyd, II - Page 3 (JM-1133) 

Section 251.41 requires a deposit before the issuance of a 

petition for elections when the county, is not required to 

pay the expenses under section 251.40. In its 

section 251.40 provides: 

entirety, 

(a) Subject to the limitations set forth 

in Subsections (b) and (c) of this section, 

the county shall pay the expense of holding a 

local option election authorized by this code 

in the county, justice precinct, or incorporated city or town in that county, provided, however, that if an election is to be 

held only within the corporate limits of a 

city or town located wholly within the county 

and not elsewhere, the county may require 

incorporated city or town to reimburse 

county for all or part of the expenses 

holding the local option election. 

(b) County expense is limited to 

holding of one election in each of 

political subdivisions in Subsection (a) 

this section in a one-year period where 

intent of the election is to legalize 

- ^ - . _. . 

the 

the 

of 

the 

the 

of 

the 

the 

Sale or alcOnollC beverages. County expense 

is limited to the holding of one election in 

each of the political subdivisions in Subsection (a) of this section in a one-year 

period where the intent of the election is to 

prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. 

(c) All other local option elections 

shall be paid by the county from funds 

derived by the county as prescribed in 

Section 251.41 of this code. 

Section 251.41 provides: 

(a) If under Section 251.40 of this code 

the county is not required to pay the cost of 

the election, the county clerk shall 

a deposit before the 

require 

issuance of a petition 

for a local option election. 

(b) The deposit must be in the form of a 

cashier's check in the total amount of 25 

cents per voter listed on the current list of 

registered voters residing in the county, 

p. 5964 
Honorable Oscar William Loyd, II - Page 4 (JM-1133) 

justice precinct, or incorporated city or 

town where the election is to be held. 

(c) The money received shall be deposited 

in the county's general fund. No refund 

may be made to the applicants regardless 

of whether the petition is returned to the 

county clerk or the election is ordered. 

(d) The county clerk may not issue a 

petition to the applicants unless the deposit 

is made, if a deposit is required by this 

code. 

(e) A violation of Subsection (d) of this 

section is a misdemeanor punishable by a 

fine of not less than $200 nor more than 

$500, or confinement in the county jail for 

not more than 30 days, or both. 

Specifically, you inquire about the 25 cent per voter 

deposit requirement prescribed by section 251.41(b). You 

ask what the legislative intent was in requiring the deposit 

and whether the county must hold an election for which the 

deposit is inadequate.1 

This deposit provision was added to the statute in 

1967. The documents relating to the legislation which 

established the deposit requirement did not reveal the logic 

used by the legislature in selecting the 25 cent per voter 

amount. Subsection (c) of that section provides that the 

deposit will be placed in the county's general fund; no 

refund is allowed whether the petition is returned or an 

election is held. The legislature must have envisioned the 

county receiving deposits, on occasion, that would not be 

expended in a particular election. The section does not 

provide for the collection of additional funds from the 

petitioner after the actual election expenses have been 

incurred. Subsection (a) of section 251.41 makes the 

deposit a condition precedent to the issuance of a petition, 

not the ordering of the election. 

1. You do not inquire about, nor do we address, any 

question as to the constitutionality of the 25 cent per 

voter deposit requirement. 

Pm 5965 
Honorable Oscar William boyd, II - Page 5 (JM-1133) 

We think the provisions contemplate that a fund will be 

maintained from deposits collected and that the costs of 

elections for which deposits are required under section 

251.41 shall be paid from that fund (except to the extent 

reimbursement of. expenses required by the county under 

section 251.40(a) covers ,said costs) . Thus, it _ is 

irrelevant under the statute if the deposit for a particular 

election does not cover its cost, since the statute 

contemplates that the costs will be paid not from that 

particular deposit but rather from the fund accumulated from 

all deposits past and future. If the fund is inadequate to 

pay for an election, the.costs of which are required by the 

statute to be paid from the fund, then we think the county 

must wait until the fund is replenished by future deposits 

to recoup any county money proper which had to be spent as a 

consequence of the fund's depletion. Whether the applicable 

provisions should be amended to provide for increased 

deposits so that an adequate fund will be maintained is of 

course a matter for the legislature. 

In our opinion, a county may not refuse to hold an 

election pursuant to sections 251.40 and 251.41 merely 

because the 25 cent per voter deposit required for the 

petition for that election may prove insufficient to cover 

the cost of the election. 

SUMMARY 

All signatures or names in a series that 

appear to violate Alcoholic Beverage Code 

section 251.10(b)(4) are to be disregarded 

in verifying a petition for a local option 

liquor election. 

A county may not refuse to hold 

election pursuant to sections 251.40 a:: 

251.41 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code because 

the 25 cent per voter deposit is insufficient 

to offset the county's expenses in conducting 

the election. 

Jz&?&G 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 5966 
Honorable Oscar William Loyd, II - Page 6 (JM-1133) 

MARY KELLER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

LOU MCCREARY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Karen C. Gladney 

Assistant Attorney General 

Pa 5967