Oregon Advisory Opinions October 02, 1940: OAG 40-69 (October 2, 1940)
Collection: Oregon Attorney General Opinions
Docket: OAG 40-69
Date: Oct. 2, 1940
Advisory Opinion Text
OAG 40-69.
In an election upon the question of creating a peoples' utility district in but not including all of Marion county, to be held concurrently with a general election in that county, the judges and clerks of the general election in the precincts wholly or partly within the proposed district are required by law to serve also in the peoples' utility district election, notwithstanding the voting place in a precinct may not be within such district.
Dear Mr. Page: I am in receipt of your letter of October 1, 1940, in which you refer to sections 56-3421 and 56-3441, Oregon Code 1935 Supplement, relating to the holding of elections for the formation, consolidation or addition to peoples' utility districts.
Said section 56-3421 provides for the giving of notice for "any election hereinbefore provided for", and among other things provides:
"* * * The county court of each county in which any part of a proposed district is located shall publish and/or post a notice of such election * * *. Such notice by the county court shall contain a designation of the polling-places in such election. The county court shall, in its discretion, designate the number and location of the polling-places, in such election; provided, that all such designated polling-places shall be located within the boundaries of the proposed district."
It is thus noticed that the provisions of said section apply generally to all elections held for the organization of or within people's utility districts.
Sections 56-3440 and 56-3441 relate to the holding of such elections concurrently with general elections held throughout the county or counties in which the district or part thereof is located.
Section 56-3440 provides, among other things, that in case a district is not coterminous with the county there shall
thus showing the intention that the same election board shall preside over the casting of peoples' utility district ballots as over the ballots relating to the general election in the county."be prepared and furnished to the county clerk, for distribution to the election judges of any precincts which are not wholly contained within the boundaries of the district holding such election, a map showing the part of such precincts within and without the district, and shall furnish such other means as may, in their judgment, be requisite to enable the election judges to determine which of such electors shall have the right to vote,"
Section 56-3441 provides:
"In case any election hereunder, whether called by the commission or by the board, is held concurrently with an election in a municipality or county containing in whole or in part the same territory as the district, the judges and clerks of such election shall serve as election officials of the district election."
It is thus seen that the provisions above quoted from section 56-3421 relate generally to peoples' utility district elections, while the provisions of sections 56-3440 and 56-3441 relate specifically to such elections which are held concurrently with the general county elections and constitute an exception from the provisions of section 56-3421.
It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that special provisions in a statute or the provisions of a special statute govern over the general provisions of a statute or of a general statute.
It is, therefore, my opinion that in the approaching election at which the question of creating the Marion County Peoples' Utility District is to be voted upon, which district does not include the entire county and some election precincts lie partly within and partly without such proposed district, the judges and clerks of the general election within such precincts under the law are required to serve also as judges and clerks of the peoples' utility district election for that portion of such precincts lying within such proposed district, notwithstanding the voting place of such precinct is not within the proposed district.