Wright v. Graves
| Decision Date | 05 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 09,09 |
| Citation | 671 S.W.2d 586 |
| Parties | W.C. WRIGHT, Orange County Attorney, Appellant, v. Jim I. GRAVES, Appellee. 84 281 CV. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
The Commissioners Court of Orange County, Texas, after a petition of more than ten percent of the qualified voters, determined that the Orange Memorial Hospital should be sold or leased. The order was dated October 10, 1983. The election was held November 8, 1983; the results were canvassed by the Commissioners Court on November 14, 1983, and it was declared that a majority voted to lease the hospital. James I. Graves filed a contest and later a motion for summary judgment, which was granted on January 18, 1984, from which appeal has been perfected to this Court. The Appellant is W.C. Wright, County Attorney of Orange County; Appellee, of course, is Graves, and they will be referred to in this opinion as Appellant and Appellee.
Appellant has several points of error. The central and controlling one is whether the ballot submitted to the voters was proper. The trial court held it to be void.
The ballot submitted to the voters follows:
* * *
* * *
(emphasis supplied)
The only "election provisions" of Article 4478 1 appear in a footnote hereunder. 2
It is this last underlined sentence in Section 3 of Article 4494l on which appellant contends the ballot in the case at bar is proper and no election contest is authorized in this situation.
On the other hand, appellee contends the ballot must conform to TEX.ELEC.CODE ANN. art. 6.05, subd. 8 (Vernon Supp.1984) which states:
We first must determine if the Election Code applies to our election. This is answered in TEX.ELEC.CODE ANN. art. 1.01 (Vernon 1967) which follows:
(emphasis supplied)
See Vela v. State, 572 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1978, no writ).
Our duty is, if possible, to harmonize the various statutes involved, resolve any inconsistency, and give effect to the dominant legislative intent. Standard v. Sadler, 383 S.W.2d 391, 395 (Tex.1964); Southern Canal Co. v. State Board of Water Eng., 159 Tex. 227, 318 S.W.2d 619 (1958); Benavides v. State, 652 S.W.2d 464 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ); Dodd v. State, 650 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no writ); Brown v. Patterson, 609 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1980, no writ).
We conclude that Article 4478 provides for an election when the required number of voters petition the Commissioners Court, but that the election is governed by the provisions of the Texas Election Code. Indeed, were we to hold that the Election Code is inapplicable, then we would have no rules concerning the eligibility of voters, the times and places for holding elections, the supervising officers, the counting and tabulation of ballots, and all the other rules and prohibitions contained in the Election Code. We are not authorized to edit the Code and decide which provisions apply, and which do not apply in an election such as we review here.
We must decide if Article 6.05(8) of the Election Code is mandatory or directory. 3
The right of constitutional suffrage is the most important right in our democratic system of government, and is the real difference between our system and others. As long as we retain it, we have the power to force needed changes at all levels of our government, for we cling steadfastly to the belief that the instinct and wisdom of the people surpass that of any individual or group and vouchsafe to us, and the generations to follow, freedom.
To determine if the form of ballot utilized in this election violated constitutional suffrage, we return first to the statute involved, then to the ballot itself. Previously in this opinion (underlined), we pointed out that Art. 4494l gives the voters these alternatives:
1. Sell the hospital. 4
2. Lease the hospital.
3. Close all or a part of the hospital.
The ballot in question gave the voters the alternative to lease the hospital to HEI Corporation, or operate the county hospital under the county budget. 5 The basic fault of this ballot is that the voter must vote for one of the propositions to vote against the other. Therefore, obviously the submitted ballot did not give the voters all the alternatives to which they were legally entitled. We hold that the form of ballot prescribed by Article 6.05(8) of the Texas Election Code is mandatory. See People v. Scully, 408 Ill. 556, 97 N.E.2d 829, 832 (1951).
Alternative propositions may be submitted in a "for or against" format. Royalty v. Nicholson, 411 S.W.2d 565 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.). But they need not be. The Commissioners Court may only submit the question of leasing the hospital. If it passes, the matter is ended. If it fails, the matter goes back to the drawing board and the hospital continues as is, pending further proposal by the Commissioners Court. Nor is it necessary for the voters to select the lessee (as the format here, "HEI"). This is a responsibility of the Commissioners Court under the statutes cited in this opinion.
Having determined that the Election Code applies to the election under review, it is clear that Appellee, as a resident of Orange County, has standing to contest the election. TEX.ELEC.CODE ANN. art. 9.30 (Vernon 1967). 6 See Hodges v. Cofer, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League
...as may be necessary to detect and punish fraud and preserve the purity of the ballot box." 12 TEX. CONST. Art. VI, § 4. See Wright v. Graves, 671 S.W.2d 586, 589 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1984, no writ). In light of this authority, the legislature enacted title 15 of the Election Code. 13 There a......