Missouri Advisory Opinions January 01, 1968: MO Att. Gen. Op. 151-68

Advisory Opinion Text

May 29, 1968

Honorable Edison Kaderly
Prosecuting Attorney
Barton County Courthouse
Lamar, Missouri 64759

Dear Mr. Kaderly:

This opinion is written to respond to your inquiry whether the county court can submit the question of the establishment of a county health center on the day of the August primary election.

The pertinent statute, Section 205.010, RSMo 1959, reads as follows:

"Petition of voters -- special election -- maximum tax rate. -- Any county, subject to the provisions of the constitution of the state of Missouri, may establish, maintain, manage and operate a public health center in the following manner: Whenever the county court shall be presented with a petition signed by at least ten per cent or more of the qualified voters of the county, . . . the county court shall submit the question to the qualified voters of the county at the next general election to be held in the county or at a special election called for the purpose, the county clerk giving notice, published once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to such election date."

We assume, of course, that a petition of at least 10 per cent or more of the qualified voters of your county has been presented to the county court.

This would be a precedent requirement to the presenting of this question to the voters under Section 205.010, RSMo 1959. We note, in passing, under our Opinion 88, dated May 20, 1953, addressed to the Honorable Joe Taylor, that it is mandatory upon the county court to "submit the question to the qualified voters of the county at the next general election to be held in the county or in a special election called for that purpose." The opinion is enclosed.

The August primary election is fixed by Section 120.310. The question is whether the primary election is a "general election" within the meaning of Section 205.010, RSMo 1959.

We recognize that "general election" is defined by Section 1.020, RSMo 1959, as the election required to be held on the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday of November, biennially. However, we do not believe the term "general election" as used in Section 205.010 (supra), means or is limited to this one date. This calls for the statutory construction of the words "general election" to determine legislative intent. It does not require a strained or narrow interpretation so as to defeat its object, but we must consider all the statutes even though found in different chapters and enacted at different times. See State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1.

A discussion of what is a general election appears in the case of Dysart v. City of St. Louis, 11 S.W.2d 1045, 1052:

"But the definition of 'general election' is settled by an amendment to the Constitution adopted in 1920 (see Laws 1921, p. 703), by which section 12 of article 10 was repealed, and another section by the same number adopted. It provides:

No county, city, town, township, school district or other political * * * subdivision of the State shall * * * become indebted, except by a two-thirds vote at an election held for that purpose; and such proposition may be submitted at any election, general or special.

It follows that any local election, city, county, etc., may be either general or special, and this wipes out the definition of 'general election' in section 7058, or limits the implied distinction to state elections.

It necessarily means that a special election is one called for a special purpose, not one fixed by law to occur at regular intervals. A primary election and a regular election are connected together in section 35 in regard to general registration, with the same requirement for a revision before a primary election as there is before a final election to elect officers. Therefore it avails nothing to distinguish a primary election from the statutory definition of any other general election."

It is our view that the term "general election" as used in Section 205.010, RSMo 1959,means any general county election. The question of the electorate determining whether to adopt a county health center can be submitted to the electorate at the primary election because it is a general election. Accordingly, we conclude the question of a county health center should be presented to the electorate at the primary election August 6, 1968, since it is the next "general election," unless it is submitted at a special election called for the purpose of submitting such question.

It is the opinion of this office that:

The question of establishment of a county health center may be submitted to the electorate on the day of the August primary election because such election is a "general election" within the meaning of Section 205.010, RSMo 1959.

The above opinion which I hereby approve, was prepared by my assistant Richard C. Ashby.

Very truly yours,

Norman H. Anderson
Attorney General