HonorableLeo Presnell Couixty Attorney Gilmsr,Texas .~ Dear sir: opinionHO. o-4546 Re: Validityof common school district election,two of the electionofficers being wives of teachersand the other being e substituteteacher.
In yoin letter of A&i1 13, 1942, you outlinethe followingfacts:
"In a School Trusteeelectionheld in a collppo~l school district of this comty on the firstSaturdayIn April, the three persons holdingthe electionwere women, two of whom were wives,~,of teachersin the school,and the other the wife~of the janitor inthe scheo$. doneof the wives of e teacherhas served as substitutet&tkU in the school~ elevenweeks during this school term.
Yhere is no questionas to the appointmentof tPjese women to hold the election'n& is there any questionas to their not being qualifiedvoters of the district,thequestion merely being based upon the close ccmnectionswhich they have with those operdkii&aiid .._ conductingthe ef?,$i!qof the school district."
You requestour opinionas 'UYwhether~~the elictio6so held was a valid~one. ,I; "ad:.; _ :, Article2746, Revise&Ci~il ,_,:. i: Statutes,praviaefy'-
5aid trus*e$Y&jJ'appoint three (3) p&ons, qualifiedv&ers of the dis~~~f,i:ljfio~:shallhold. su~hTe+++ and make returns thereofto &i~iii-t$~$eeswithin fivs r!jy"M@ after such election,and &id'~persons13hallreceivCd txmpeneatioafoe their services the sum of One Doller ($1) each, to be Pd& out of the local funds of the school districtwhere the electionwas held. . . If, at the time ana place for hol&ingsuch election,any or all of the personsso appointed to'holdsuch electionare'absent07 refuse to act, thenthe electorspresentmy select,oftheir 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 statutedoes not aisqdify any of these personses 'election officeik. We refer to Article2940, RevisedCivil Statutes,which sets out certain'disqualificationsfor electionjudges,clerks and supervisors. If that statuteappliesto cosunon schooldistrictelectious,a ToFt which'wedo not find it necessaryto decide,it would not render this electionvoid. Certelnlyit would not disqualifythe two  the only questionraised is that their husbandsare $eachersin the school. Whether the substituteteacher,issuch an officeras would disqualifyher under Art$cle'29&0is still anotherpoint unnecessaryto determine.
The case.ofMiller v. Tucker,llg S.'W. (2) 92, involvedthe contestof ~a local optionelection. We quote therefrom:
"Appellees'contentitithat the electionwas renderedInvalid becauseJ. Roy Lawson,the presidingoff&r, we8 at the ssme the mayor of lkvten is also withoutmerit. There was no showingor cont6ntlonthat the presenceof Mr. Lswso? as prdaing ,offi+.in any way lmprope~,~.affected the result of the elect.ign.'~F&i objectionvas.maae~toMr. Lawson serving. The ele&i&&s~f+rly and honestlyh&d and, so far & shown by the record;the~voteswere correctlycountedand returns accuratelymade. Article2940, Vernon'sAnn. Civ. St., is directoryonly and an el&ian is not vitiatedby the fact that the electi& $@&&ct,ti~:~xiT&~~ c&r tif;,k&hority did not possessthe requiredqualifications in the absence of a showingof fraud or misconduct.Hill v. Sm1thville IndependentSchool Dist., Tex. Civ; ASP. 239 S-W. 987; Gayle v.'~ Alexander,Tti. Civ. App. 75 S. W. (2) 706."
Supportingthe same principlewe cite: Bengetterv. Msrskell,70 S. W. (2) 285; Geyle v:Alexander 75 S. W. (2) 706; Deaver v. State, ex rel. ~'ipp, 66 s. w. 256.
In our opinionthe,el&ion ia not invaliduuder the cirotrmstances which you relate.
Yours very truly APPRovm APR. 24, 1942 s/ GROVER- ATl'CRHEY6ZNERALOFTEXAS FlICST ASSISl!AWT ATTORWRY- s/ Glenn R. '$ewis
APpF@VEDoPINIONcGMrrTEE BP B.