Op. Atty. Gen. 106e

b ' ` ` have actually voted at COUNTY SEAT: REMOVAL. Otherwise qualified voters need not _ previous election or be registered to sign petition for changing county seat. Minn. Stat. §§ 372.01 , 372.03 (l994). 106-c January 24, 1995 Michelle E. Moren Roseau County Attomey 309-1/2 Third Street N.W. P.O. Box 239 Roseau, MN 56751 Dear Ms. Moren: In your letter to the Off`ice of the Attomey General, you set forth the following: FACTS ()n January 9, 1995 , two petitioners filed a notice of intention to circulate a petition for changing the county seat, pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 372 (1994). Minn. Stat. § 372.01 (1994) provides in pertinent part: When a petition is presented to the auditor of any county in the following form: "To the county board of the county of , Minnesota: The undersigned legal voters of this county request that the county seat be changed to (here designate the place)," signed by a least 60 percent of those voting in the county at the last preceding general election, accompanied by affidavits Of at least two of the signers stating that (a) the petition signatures are genuine, (b) they were signed within 60 days before the date of the affidavits, and (c) when signing the petition the petitioners were legal voters of the county, and the notice of intention to circulate the petition under section 372.02 was given. the auditor shall immediately file the petition and affidavits and make, seal. and file in the auditor`s office an order for a special meeting of the county board to consider the petition. You then ask substantially the following questions: Michelle E. Moren January 24, 1995 Page 2 QUESTION ONE Does this requirement that the petitions be signed by " 60 percent of those voting in the county at the last preceding general election," mean that only individuals who actually voted in Roseau County in November 1994, will be eligible to sign the petition? OPINION While the matter is not free from doubt, it is our opinion that the language referred to does not require that each petition signer must have actually voted in the county in the November, 1994 general election. Rather we believe that the petition would be valid if signed by a number of qualified voters equal to 60 percent of the number of persons voting in the last general election. Prior to 1985, such was clearly the case. Minn: Stat. §372.01 (1984) provided in pertinent part: When there shall be presented to the auditor of any county a petition substantially in the following form: "To the county board of the county of , Minnesota: The undersigned legal voters of this county pray that the county-seat thereof be changed to (here designate the place)," signed by legal voters of the county to a number equal to not less than 60 percent of the whole number voting therein at the last preceding general election . . . the auditor shall forthwith file the petition and affidavits, and make, seal, and file in his office an order for a special meeting of the county board to consider such petition, This language clearly required only that the number of signers equal at least 60 percent of the number of persons voting at the preceding election. However, that language was changed in 1985 by Act of May lO, 1995, ch. 109, § 3 1985 Minn. Laws at 271 as follows: When there-shaH-be a petition i_s presented to the auditor of any county a petitien-substant»ially in the following form: "To the county board of the county of , Minnesota: The undersigned legal voters of this county pray reguest that the county-seat theirle be changed to (here designate the place)," signed by le‘ga¥~eter-ef+he-ee&nty~te-a-nw%beeequal-teazet-less-tha§ a_t lea;st 60 percent of the whale-amber w voting thei=ein in-the county at the last preceding general election. accompanied by affidavits of net-less-thaa at least two of the signers thereef- stating that. te-the-lenew<ledge-et-eff-i~an+s¢ (_al the petition signatures te-t~he~pet+t+ea are genuine, Michelle E. Moren January~24, 1995 Page 3 (b) they were sebseribed-thereto- _ig_s ned within 60 days preeed-`iiig___ before the date of the affidavits, and that-af§ahts-are-inforiiied-arid-beheve-that-at the-time-of 191 when signing the petition the petitioners were legal voters of the county, and it-appearihg-t~hat the notice of intention to circulate the petition provided-for_i~h u__nder section 372. 02 has-been w_a_s given, the auditor shall forthwithl immediately file the petition and affidavits, and make, seal, and file 1n his the auditor’ s office an order for a special meeting of the county board to consider sueh th_e petition, speeifyi-n~g-thereiii. See also I_d4 at P. 273 amending Minn. Stat. § 372.04 . Standing alone, this change in wording would suggest a legislative intent to change the 60 percent requirement from a reference to the n_unLe; of signatures required, to a substantive requirement that the signatories actually be persons who voted at the previous election. For a number of reasons, however, we do not believe such a change was intended. Rather, the 1985 bill itself, its legislative history and the relationship between the subject language and other provisions of Minn. Stat. ch. 372, all indicate that the 1985 amendment was not intended to make a substantive change in the petitioning requirement. It is elementary that the ultimate goal of statutory construction is to ascertain legislative intent. In undertaking that determination, we may consider, among other things the circumstances under which the law was enacted. the former law, if any, including other laws upon its same or similar subjects and contemporaneous legislative history. E Minn. Stat. §645 . 16 (1994). A review of Chapter 109 of the 1985 Laws in its entirety discloses that. while the bill did effectuate some substantive changes in the law applicable to counties, the majority of changes made in revising each section of eight entire chapters of statutes pertaining to counties were plainly of a housekeeping nature not intended to make any substantive changes but simply to revise the statutory language contained in those chapters. Michelle E. Moren January 24, 1995 Page 4 The presentations to committees in both houses of the legislature considering House File 516, which became Chapter 109, also indicate that the changes to Chapter 472 made in section 3 of the bill fall into the housekeeping category. For example, Representative Virgil Johnson, House author in explaining the bill to the House Local and Urban Affairs Committee, on March 5, 1985, described the proposed amendments to Chapter 372 as follows: "Chapter 372, changing of county seats, that’s basically language clean-up and it improves the language determined in deciding petitions to change the county seat." Dick Cox, counsel for the Associations of Minnesota Counties, also spoke on the bill, and stated:_ House File 516 is actually phase two of a multi-yea`r effort to modernize and systematize and update county statues. It’s here before you to remove some of this language, as Representative Johnson points out, that sort of sounds like Dickens or at least Tobacco Road. It has been on the books for a lot of years. In many cases the language goes back as far as we can trace in the official statutes for 1905, the revised laws of that year. Which means, in effect, some of the language was around before that. Probably in the 1800’5. Basically we are interested in codification and then update and revision. In addressing the Senate Local and Urban Affairs Committee on April 9, 1985, Mr. Cox likewise said: "Section 3 of the bill, beginning on page 16, amends Chapter 372. Again, clean-up language on the chapter having to do with changing county seats." A bill summary of "substantive changes" contained in House File 516, prepared by the office of Senate Counsel, was also presented to the Committee. That summary (copy attached) contains no reference to any proposed language changes for Chapter 372, Our conclusion is further supported by the title to Chapter 109 itself which contains specific references to particular substantive changes which do not implicate Chapter 372, and then indicates that the Act is one "revising the language of the text of chapters concerning county powers and county boards." While the titles of acts of the legislature are not determinative in themselves, they may be referred to in ascertaining legislative intent. S£, e.g., County of Hennepin v. Citv of Hopkins, 239 Minn. 357 , 58 N.W.?.d 851 (1953). Michelle E. Moren January 24, 1995 Page 5 Finally, section 372.01 as amended remains consistent with itself and other provisions of Chapter 372 only to the extent that the 60 percent requirement is interpreted as referring to the number of signatures needed rather than requiring signers be persons who actually voted at the previous election. Minn. Stat. § 372.01 both before and after the 1985 amendment requires affidavits concerning the petition signatures. L_e_._, that they are genuine, were signed within 60 days prior to the affidavits and that the signers were "1ega1 voters of the County." Section 372.03, before and after 1985 , provides for the Board to inquire into and verify the same conditions contained in this affidavit and also determine whether any signatures have been withdrawn. The board is required to strike from the petition all signatures not meeting the affidavit criteria and any which have been withdrawn. Neither the required affidavits nor the board’s review-and-strike authority contain any reference to the question of whether a signer actually voted in the previous election. Had the legislature intended to impose such a new requirement in 1985, it seems clear that parallel changes would have been made to conform the certification and board review provisions to include that requirement. The fact that no such amendments were made is further support for the conclusion that no additional substantive requirements for the petitioners were intended. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that legal voters of the county need not have actually voted in the 1994 general election to be counted in determining whether the 60 percent requirement of section 372.01 has been met. QUESTION TWO Must persons be registered pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 201 to be considered a "1egal voters" eligible to sign a petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 372.01 (1994)? Michelle E. Moren January 24, 1995 Page 6 OPINION We answer your question in the negative. As you point out, Minn. Stat. §201.014 (1994) sets forth the legal qualifications concerning a person’s eligibility as a voter. §eLa_B_o Minn. Const. art. 7, § 1. The fact that an eligible voter is required to register prior to actually voting does not, in our view, impose an added qualification upon the status of being a "1ega1" voter. Rather, it is more in the nature of an administrative mechanism whereby that status is to be formally confirmed prior to casting a ballot. This conclusion is consistent with several Minnesota court decisions and opinions of this office which have addressed the status of unregistered voters as petition signers under various statutes and charter provisions. See e.g., Eastwood v. Donovan, 259 Minn. 43 , 105 N.W.2d 686 (1960) ("elector"); Gould v. Citv of Bloomington, 394 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) ("qualifie'd electors"); Op. Atty. Gen. 218-C-1 December 11, 1947 ("1egal voter"): 106E, March 6, 1946 (legal voters); 183-R September 17, 1932 (qualified electors). If the legislature intended to impose registration as a condition for signing the petitions, it could easily have imposed that requirement expressly. Lf Minn. Stat. §§ 6.54 , 204C.05, subd. lb, 340A.416, 340A.602, 351.16 (1994). Thus, it is our view that registration is not required as a condition for eligibility to sign the petitions pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 372.01 . Best regards, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY III Attorney General KENNETH E. RASCHKE, JR. Assistant Attorney General fc/l» '¢s\_s_'_-iiwh RM- ltn. r£usl'z_-;>:»§_-~'¢rzig___ ran ims _1;_=_27_11¢1..004__§41~_?`:,_' : [1] Coutta¢|&Resmmh _._.-_ _A_' _-~,--r-'~ \ ~ ~~_Senate .. _ . \Y'L:=;T:' ,.; '. - . ~ State of Minnesota ’A-lmu°m. `, ‘ ` " " <- ' -. - . ..~_.:. M\. ~4|*-|“ ltv ' linn l ~u’u~ d ~oo| hon m 1 -l . l ¢w~~-q¢-~ TO: Locll and Urban Governmnnt Committee ~nr\.-~ g mv\\l lnl' ar M¢d¢u. ».n~~`, FROHr levorly C. nven, Sonaeu Coun¢¢l 556 liablva :::_,'::‘.:mm_ DATEI Apr:'.l 8, 1905 _ org-gunman _,: '", iL"". » . ¢m=¢--¢~-~" . RE\ Bill S\\mmlry of . ul‘$l¢. Rolat:.nq tn "“"°"'°°"_ counciem substantive changes “.:.;',~:a" 1 dl\l.*'”' ' ' ,':`,:‘¢'°‘_~"_';"" l. Page 9, linn 15-29. _ nunn -'\~ ‘ *-~ nepuu limits on the maximum amoune that may bn paid _,‘,‘_,‘:‘:,',_,,, co cna county auditor co transcribe uccrd: when county ~..u nw- bour£du:y linn an ohanqed. Curr¢nr. trw permits eha ~#~*- iud nor to bo aid six conti per £olio. The proposed ____“'°"_,_`__"'_'_"_ - churg¢ would show cna county board to ne cho munz ~a.-"- eo bn paid. 2. Page 11. linn 24-361 ago-ts, lines 25-35, pages l _ 22-23, linn 17-36. 1- 42 page 38, links 4-30; and page ‘ 58, lin¢s 1-20. Ch¢ng¢s maximum int¢:¢ot rata on bonds from six parsons to maximum rata authorized under chapter 475. J. page 2‘, line 16 and p¢qo 47, line ll. _ Substituhon '1andowners' for 'froehold¢:n” to update languaqo. 4. Pagca 42-44, sections 6~9. _‘I'.ttl¢ change how '!.x¢cut.l.vl Sccrceary" to "t:m:nt-y Coordinator“. S. Plgo 44,_ lino ZE. Romovoc 'Sanatcriums' from the title nt chapter 375. 6. Yaqe 45, lines 3, 7. Substitutll 'mentllly ill" for "insann'. |nginlntrvn Rn§. |1h. TF|:Bt?-?QB-Q?Il _ Jnn 17'05 13!?8 Nn.UUA P.UK 10. .11. [130] Page 57, section 11. '~` celotex all references tn."atn§nou¢¢¢'_ Feqe 42, lines 10-14, section 5; and paqu 59, lines 4-8. section 12. Authorites county boards tn reimburse newly eie¢L@q commissioners for expenses incurred prior :o assuming office for attendance et e training cr quar¢;iun program which will familiarize them with their oFFi¢:el duties. Peqe 61, lines 18-26, section ld. Increases limit on amount that the county board may appropriate ennuelly to eid poultry associations £:or 3100 to 8500. . regan 51-62, Linos 27-36, 1-3, section 14. Increeses limit'on amount that the county board may appropriate annually to assist in maint¢ininq en exhibit ot county products st the state fair iron sane to $1,000. _Fege 63, lines lJ-Zl, section l§. Renoven reference to poor farms. Revieor instructions, page 63-64, section 16. Moves sections 392.06-392.11 regarding the county purchasing department to chapter 375, the enaptnr nn county boerds. Moves sections 3!5.035-395.0!. regerdinq county s:d to poultry essocietions, county exhibits et the state fair, and county organization qr:nt§ for economic and agricultural development to chapter 375. The effect of these changes is to incorporate horn chapters 392 and 395 into chapter 3?5. Repealer ecction. page 64, section 17. Rei_:eelg section 374,05, which provides ‘:.'>r having cithcr registered or coupon bonds. rcde:s; law requires all municipal bonds that are tax exempt :: be in registered form. ' Repeels section 377.02, which provides Fcr peyme~r o‘ goods delivered or received by thc county almshouso. |ngis\nt\vn Rnf. |\h. TF\ZE|?-?q$-W?S! ]nn 17'QS 13278 Nn.nUA P.Od Sinco aimanousee do not exist anymnr¢, +n¢ g,c;i°n ;. obsolete, nepeell sections 392.01-392.03, which permit the county board to eppoint a county purchasing eqent. Authority to create a county purchasinq.depaztnnnt is annum-md in sections 392.06-392.11. eo that the sections proposed for repeal are redundant with these sectionu, Repeala sections 395.01-395.03, which permit the county _board to maintain a demonstration farm under the supervision of the department of aqriculiure cf the Univereity c£ Minnesota. The sections proposed for repeal are obsolete. Repeals sections 395.14-395.24. which permit the county to make seed and feed loans to county reeidents. The sections proposed for repeal are obsolete. BCO:Cf \