Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1965 )


Menu:
  •             EA            mu       GENERAL
    OF   TEXAS
    Hon. Coke R. Stevenson, Jr.         Opinion No. c-426
    Administrator
    Texas Liquor Control Board          Re:   Whether the signer of a
    Austin, Texas                             petition for a local
    option election to
    prohibit the sale of
    alcoholic beverages is
    legally bound to vote
    for prohibition if the
    election is called,
    Dear Sir:                                 and related question.
    You have requested an opinion on the following
    questions:
    "1. Is the signer of a local option petition
    seeking to call an election to prohibit sale of
    alcoholic beverages legally bound to vote for
    prohibition if said election is called?
    "2. Does any person whatsoever have the
    right to check the ballots cast in such election
    to determine how signers of the petition voted
    at the election?"
    We agree with your conclusion that both of these
    questions should be answered in the negative.
    The purpose of requiring a petition of voters as a
    prerequisite for the calling of a local option election is to
    show that there is a sufficient number of qualified voters
    requesting the issue to be voted on as to indicate a likelihood
    of its carrying at the election, thereby justifying the holding
    of the election in order to determine the will of a majority ES
    the voters. Undoubtedly, the contemplation of the law is that
    each signer should have a present good faith intention, at the
    time of signing a petition, to vote for the issue to be submitted
    if en election is held. In keeping with the purpose of the
    petition, Article 666-32 of Vernon's Penal Code provides that
    a petition for an election seeking to legalize the sale of
    alcoholic beverages must contain a statement that "it is the
    hope, purpose and intent of the petitioners whose signatures
    appear hereon to see legalized the sale of alcoholic beverages
    -2002-
    Hon. Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., page 2 (C-426)
    referred to in the issue set out above," and a petition for an
    election seeking to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages
    must contain a statement that "it is the hope, purpose and
    intent of the petitioners whose signatures appear hereon to
    see prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages referred to in
    the issue set out above." However, there is no provision in
    the statute which purports to compel a signer to vote for the
    issue or which purports to invalidate his ballot if he does not
    vote for it. To the contrary, the law as enunciated by our
    courts recognizes the right of a person to change his mind and
    to withdraw his signature after he has signed a petition for an
    election. Stahl v; Miller, 63 S.W.2d 578-(Tex.Civ.App. 1983,
    error ref.); Texas Power & Light Co. v. Brownwood Public Serv.
    
    87 S.W.2d 55
                  ;(Tex.Civ.App.d
    %i'(Tex.Civ.A p. 1949, reversed m other grounds, 
    148 Tex. 443
    ,
    226 s.W.2d 116 P . The right to withdraw one's signature from the
    petition ceases at a certain stage of the proceedings leading up
    to the calling and holding of the election because it is necessary
    to have a definite deadline for fixing the status of the petition
    incident to determining its sufficiency; but the right of a
    signer to change his mind and to vote as he chooses at the
    election continues up to the moment that he deposits his ballot
    in the ballot box.
    Since there is no statute attempting to invalidate a
    ballot for being cast contrary to the voter's indicated view
    when he signed the petition for the election, it is unnecessary
    to consider whether such a statute would violate the privilege
    of free suffrage guaranteed by our Constitution. Westerman V.
    -9    
    111 Tex. 29
    , 
    227 S.W. 178
    (1921).
    Your second question is whether anyone has the right
    to check the ballots cast in a local option election to determine
    how signers   of the petition voted at the election. Article VI,
    Section 4 of the Texas Constitution provides for a secret ballot
    in elections, and the statutes prescribing election procedures
    strive to assure realization of this constitutional provision.
    See Arts. 8.11, 8.15, and 8.20, Texas Election Code. The only
    lawful manner for ascertaining how a person voted at an election
    is by matching his signed ballot stub with his ballot. After a
    ballot has been cast, the only circumstances under which a stub
    box may lawfully be opened and the stub matched with the ballot
    from which it has been detached is on order of the district
    judge in an election contest, where it has been determined that
    the ballot was illegally cast, or in the investigation of alleged
    criminal violations. Art. 
    8.15, supra
    . Since a ballot cast
    contrary to the voter's indicated view when he signed the petition
    for the election is not illegal, no authority would exist even
    in these two circumstances for permitting an examination of the
    -2003-
    Hon. Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., page 3 (~426)
    ballots and stubs with a view to ascertaining how the signers
    of the petition had voted.
    SUMMARY
    The signers of a petition for a local option
    election to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages
    are not legally bound to vote for prohibition if
    the election is called. No one has a right to
    check the ballots cast in the election to determine
    how signers of the petition voted.
    Yours very truly,
    WAGGONER CARR
    Attorney General
    MKW:sj
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    W. V. Geppert, Chairman
    John Banks
    George Black
    Terry Goodman
    H. Grady Chandler
    APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GEI'IEXAL
    BYt Stanton Stone
    -2004-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C-426

Judges: Waggoner Carr

Filed Date: 7/2/1965

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017