Court Opinion

ID: 4135128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-18 01:58:42.40638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:21.114675
License: Public Domain

EA             NEY      GENERAL
                            OFTEXAS
                            AUSTIN 11,TrcxAs
wA<:<:oNEKCAKX
 A-rroRS~-
        ,i*lSF-H*L            October 15, 1964

      Honorable Charles A. Allen        Opinion   No. C-332
      Criminal District Attorney
      Marshall, Texas                        Constructionof Article
                                        g&32, Vernon's Penal Code.
      Dear Mr. Allen:
                In your re ueet for an opinion, you ask whether the
      language of Article %66-32, which pPe8OribeS the form of the
      petition In a local option election, is mandatory or directory.
      That provision reads:
                      "The petition for a local option election
                 seeking to legalize the sale of alcoholic beVePage8
                 of one #ormore of the various types and alcoholic
                 content8 shall be headed 'Petitionfor Local Opt-ion
                 Election to-Legalize,'and shall contain a atate-
                 ment just ahead of the sign-s     of the petitioners,
                 as follows: 'It 18 the hope, purpose and intent of
                 the petitionerswhose signaturesappear hereon to see
                 legalized the sale of alcoholic beverages referred to
                 in the Issue set out above."' (&phaSiS  supplied)
                You state In your request that of the 140 petitions
      submitted to the CommiaslonerfsCourt for action 'thereon,50
      of them were merely headed "Petitionfor Local Option Election,"
      and did not contain the exact wording of the above provision.
      You state further that the other 90 petitions contained th@ ex-
      press wording of the statute. The ultimate question, then, is
      whether or not 50 petitions will have to be thrown out for the
      reason that they are not in strict compliancewith the,statute.
                Ordinarily,when the word "shall" i8 used, the pre-
      sumption is that it is in the imperative, and not in the direc-
                   WcDaren v. State, 82 Tex.Crlm. 449, 199 S.W. 811
      ~?~V~?%en     there Is room for construction,mandatory or per-
      missive words are to be given the meaning that will best express
      legislativeIntent. 53 Tex.Jur.26,29, Statutes, Sec. 16.
                Prior to 1963, the statutory requisitesfor a local
      ,optionpetition under Article 666-32 were:
                        11
                         . . . The petition so iSSued
                                                    shall clearly
                 state the issue to,be voted upon in such election,
                 which shall be the sam'eissue as that set out in
                 the application; . . .'
                                   -1581-
Honorable Charles A. Allen, Page 2 (C-332)

Under this provision It was not required that the Issue be
stated in any particular language, statutory or otherwise. The
Legislature,authorized some latitude of statement, limited only
by the requirementthat the issue be o~learl stated. See Hutaon
v. Smith, 191 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.Civ.App.
                                     ---JD#.
          In 1963, however, the Legislatureamended the statutes-.
by stating the exact language to be used on a local option petl-
tion (Article 666-32, above quoted). We feel that by so doing,
the LegislatureIntended to eliminate the latitude allowed under
the prior law.
          In light of the foregoing,we hold that the language
in paragraph 5, Section 32 of Article 666 is mandatory. To hold
otherwise would be to hold the 1963 amendment to Article 666-32
of no consequence.
                          SUMNARY

              The ,languageof Article 666-32, Vernon's
         Penal Oode, which prescribe0 the form of a petl-
         tlon for a local option election; 18 mandatory,
         not directory.
                             ReSpectfullysubmitted,
                             WAGGONER CARR
                             Attorney General of Texas

BSC/lh
APPROVED:
OPINION COMNITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Howard Fender
Mary K. Wall
John Reeve8
George Black
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Roger Tyler

                          -1582-