Oregon Advisory Opinions July 30, 1963: OAG 63-100 (July 30, 1963)
Collection: Oregon Attorney General Opinions
Docket: OAG 63-100
Date: July 30, 1963
Advisory Opinion Text
OAG 63-100.
Secretary of State
You request an opinion as to what questions may be submitted at the special election required to be held by chapter 628, Oregon Laws 1963, in the event that chapter 627, Oregon Laws 1963, the new income tax law, is referred to the people. A referral petition for the tax law has already been filed and the special election will be held if the petition is perfected.
Section 2 of chapter 628 provides that:
"No Act, measure or question shall be submitted at the special election to be held under this Act except the measure described in section 1 of this Act."
On the other hand, ORS 609.040 (1) provides:
"When the petition of 100 or more legal voters of any county is filed with the county clerk 45 days before the general or special election in any year, the county clerk shall cause notice to be given that at such election a vote will be taken for and against permitting dogs to run at large in the county."
Your question is whether § 2 of chapter 628 prevents the submission to the electorate of other questions which earlier enacted statutes, such as ORS 609.040, authorize to be submitted for approval or rejection at a special election.
Article IV, § 1, Oregon Constitution, governing elections for referred measures provides:
"* * * All elections on measures referred to the people of the state shall be had at the biennial regular general elections, except when the Legislative Assembly shall order a special election. Any measure referred to the people shall take effect and become the law when it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, and not otherwise. * * *"
The authority of the Legislative Assembly to order special elections under this provision was considered in Libby v. Olcott, (1913) 66 Or. 124, 134 P. 13. A 1913 Act had ordered a special election at a specific date at which time the people were to vote on "all measures passed by the Twenty-Seventh Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon upon which the referendum may be invoked." The contentions were made in the case that the 1913 Act was unconstitutional because it did not state what measures the vote was to be taken upon and because no referendum petitions were pending when the Act was passed. At page 129, the court answered these contentions as follows:
"* * * the legislature itself, acting directly, could have referred to the people any or all the laws it enacted, and it is not perceived why it could not, with equal propriety, annex a lawful condition to a referendum of the same bills ordered by petition. Summing up, then, as to the first two objections, we hold that the act sufficiently states the measures upon which a vote will be so taken, that there was then actual material in existence subject to the referendum, and that it was competent for the legislature to provide for the referendum of its own measures only. It is also competent for the legislature to anticipate a condition likely to arise in the future, and consequently to provide legal rules applicable to such a contingency. This constantly happens in the ordinary course of legislation. Unless, therefore, it is forbidden by the Constitution, the legislative assembly, foreseeing possible referendums, might with propriety provide a rule of action in advance controlling the procedure in such a situation."
Article IV, § 1, therefore not only authorizes the Legislative Assembly to call a special election on measures referred by the Legislative Assembly itself but permits the calling of a special election for measures referred by petition. See Opinions of the Attorney General, 1954-1956, p. 83.
While the Legislative Assembly has ordered a special election in this case and restricted it to a vote upon the tax law, ORS 609.040 (1), supra, authorizes the county clerks to place the question of dogs running at large before the electorate at a special election when a petition is duly filed before that special election. If the special election required by chapter 628, Oregon Laws 1963, is a special election within the meaning of ORS 609.040 (1), then there is a conflict between two statutes because the submission of the question of dogs running at large is an "Act, measure or question" which may not be submitted under the terms of § 2, chapter 628, Oregon Laws 1963.
It is a general rule of construction, however, that specific provisions relating to a particular subject govern in respect to that subject as against general provisions in other parts of the law which might otherwise be broad enough to include it. Leet v. Barr, (1922) 104 Or. 32, 202 P. 414, 206 P. 548; Colby v. Larson, (1956) 208 Or. 121, 297 P. (2d) 1073, 299 P. (2d) 1076.
Accordingly, it is our opinion that chapter 628, Oregon Laws 1963, ordering a special election in the event of referral to the voters of chapter 627, Oregon Laws 1963, does not authorize the submission of other questions which earlier enacted statutes such as ORS 609.040 allow to be submitted at a special election.