Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports·Decided April 1, 1994·No. 94-109·Published

Opinion

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of California

DANIEL E. LUNGREN

Attorney General

______________________________________

OPINION : : No. 94-109 of : : April 14, 1994 DANIEL E. LUNGREN : Attorney General : : CLAYTON P. ROCHE : Deputy Attorney General : : ______________________________________________________________________________

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. BRULTE, MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following question:

May a registered voter request an absentee ballot for more than one election in a single application?

CONCLUSION

A registered voter may not request an absentee ballot for more than one election in a single application except for a special election to fill a vacancy in office when the election includes a special primary election.

ANALYSIS

The Legislature has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme governing requests for absentee ballots by registered voters. (Elec. Code, §§ 1000-1456.)1 In this opinion, we are not concerned with the statutory provisions for disabled persons (§§ 1450-1456; see 76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 154 (1993)), members of the armed forces and their families, persons temporarily living outside of the United States, or those serving on merchant vessels (§§ 1200-1208). Rather, we are concerned with a typical registered voter applying for an absent voter's ballot, and the question is whether the application may cover more than one election. We conclude generally that it may not.

In resolving the issues presented, we may rely upon several well established principles of statutory construction. "The object that a statute seeks to achieve is of primary importance in statutory interpretation." (Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry (1992) 1 Cal.4th 976,

1 All section references are to the Elections Code unless otherwise noted.

1. 94-109

987.) "`In determining intent, we look first to the language of the statute, giving effect to its "plain meaning."'" (Burden v. Snowden (1992) 2 Cal.4th 556, 562.) "The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible." (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387.) "[I]t is presumed the Legislature intended reasonable results consistent with its expressed purpose, not absurd consequences." (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1165- 1166.) "When reasonably possible, we avoid statutory constructions that render particular provisions superfluous or unnecessary." (Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 459.) "Unless unreasonable or clearly contrary to the statutory language or purpose, the consistent construction of a statute by an agency charged with responsibility for its implementation is entitled to great deference." (Id., at p. 460.)

Applying these rules of construction, we believe that except in one instance, only a single election may be the subject of an absent voter's ballot application. Section 1002 states with respect to the time within which an application for an absent voter's ballot may be made:

"Except as provided in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 1450), application for an absent voter's ballot shall be made in writing to the elections official having jurisdiction over the election between the 29th and the 7th day prior to the election. The application shall be signed by the applicant and shall show his place of residence. Any applications received by the elections official prior to the 29th day shall be kept and processed during the application period."2

References to "the election" in section 1002 connote a specified single election and a period of time before such single election when the application may be filed.

Consistent with this statutory language, section 1006 sets forth the information which a voter must provide in an application for an absent voter's ballot. It states in part:

"(a) Any printed application which is to be distributed to voters for requesting absent voter ballots shall contain spaces for the following:

"(1) The printed name and residence address of the voter as it appears on the affidavit of registration. "(2) The address to which the ballot is to be mailed.

"(3) The voter's signature.

"(4) The name and date of the election for which the request is to be made.

"(5) The date the application must be received by the clerk.

"(b) (1) The information required by paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of subdivision (a) may be preprinted on the application. The information required by paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) shall be personally affixed by the voter."

2 As previously indicated, "Chapter 7" concerns permanent absent voter status for disabled persons.

2. 94-109

Subdivision (a)(4) of section 1006 thus requires that the application provide "[t]he name and date of the election," again demonstrating that the application is to be made and be applicable to a single election. This conclusion is supported by the fact that subdivision (b)(1) permits such information to be preprinted on the application.

While an application for an absent voter's ballot may apply only to a single election in most circumstances, an exception is to be recognized for a special election when part of the electoral process for the election involves a special primary election. This situation is exemplified in elections to fill vacancies which arise in congressional and legislative offices.3

The procedures for filling vacancies in congressional offices are described in article 1, section 2, paragraph 4 of the United States Constitution: "When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." Similarly with respect to state legislative offices, article IV, section 2, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution provides: "When a vacancy occurs in the Legislature the Governor immediately shall call an election to fill the vacancy." Implementing these constitutional provisions is Government Code section 1773, which states:

"When a vacancy occurs in the office of Representative to Congress or in either houses of the Legislature, the Governor shall within 14 days after the occurrence of the vacancy issue a writ of election to fill the vacancy . . . .

"The Governor shall issue the election proclamation under his hand and the Great Seal of the state, and transmit copies to the board of supervisors of the counties in which the election is to be held."

The election procedures for conducting such a special election are found in sections 7200-7204. (See § 2651.) Section 7200.5 states: "A special election to fill a vacancy . . . shall be conducted on a Tuesday at least 112 days but no more than 119 days, following the issuance of an election proclamation by the Governor . . . ." A special primary election with specific authorization for absentee ballot requests is set forth in section 7201, which states:

"A special primary election shall be held in the district in which the vacancy occurred on the eighth Tuesday or, if the eighth Tuesday is the day of or the day following a state holiday, the ninth Tuesday preceding the day of the special election at which the vacancy is to be filled. . . .

"Notwithstanding Section 1002, applications for absent voters' ballots may be submitted not more than 25 days before the primary election, except that Section 1002 shall apply if the special election or special primary election is consolidated with a statewide election. . . ."4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, (Cal. 1994).

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion (Untitled California Attorney General Opinion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donnellan v. Hite
293 P.2d 158 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Immel v. Langley
338 P.2d 385 (California Supreme Court, 1959)
Brailsford v. Blue
369 P.2d 13 (California Supreme Court, 1962)
Burden v. Snowden
828 P.2d 672 (California Supreme Court, 1992)
Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry
824 P.2d 643 (California Supreme Court, 1992)
Dix v. Superior Court
807 P.2d 1063 (California Supreme Court, 1991)
Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV
805 P.2d 873 (California Supreme Court, 1991)
Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission
743 P.2d 1323 (California Supreme Court, 1987)