Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-510

Opinion No. 510 Elections-Residenc6---&hool Districts -Challenge of Elector. HELD: The fact that an elector of one sehool district purchased land in another school distriet has no bearing upon his right to yote at an election in the first distriet unless it can be shown that he intended to change his place of residence to such new district and had done so before such election. AIU'il 12, 1934. You request an opinion from this of- fice in the following matter: The votes of two parties desiring to vote were challenged. 'l'hese two par- ties had resided in this distriet on a rented traet of land for several years prior to the election and still farm land in the distr.ict. About l\Iarch 12th these parties who are brothers, pur- ehased under contract a traet of land in an outside distriet and mO\'ed their personal effects there to a house situ- ated on that tract of land and have sinee eaten and slept in this house, re- turning to land in this particular dis- trict to herd their cattle daily and have been physieally present in the district every day since Mareh 12th and to da te of eleetion. It is presumed that these men will continue with their farming operations on their land on the ,place which they ha\'e purehased and it is likewise presumed that they will eontinue to li\'e there until default in their contraet, at least, whieh ean- not be before this fall. OPI:\,IO:\'S OJ<' THE ATTORXEY GENERAL 3·U) The question then is whether or not these parties were qualified voters in the district from which they mO"ed on March 12th and likewise whether or not they had a right to ,'ote at any school district election. Section 574, R. C. 1'£', 1921, provides the rules for determining residence of voters and provides, "A change of resi- dence can only be made by the act of removal joined with the intent to re- main in another place. There can only he one residence. A residence cannot he lost until another is gained." (sub- division 9.) In Sommers v. Gould. 53 l\10nt. 53S. the Supreme Court said: "The resi~ dence of a voter must be determined from his acts and intent." 54 C .. T. 70S, on the subject of residence, states "The meaning" (of residence) "when em- ployed in a statute is often pronlCaUve of dispute, often making it difficult to give an exact definition. • • • ,for when used in statute's it has different meanings in different connections." * * As its statut.ory definition depends upon the legislative purpose as well as on the context of the statute, it must be con- strued in every case in accordance with the object and intent of the statute in which it occurs; hence its meaning is to be determined from the facts and circumstances taken together in the particular case." As Section 574 relates specific1l11y to the registration of voters the provisions of that section control where it lays Ilown any rule. Subdivision 9, quoted ahove, was quoted in Sommers v. Gould, supra, and is directlr in point in the cnse you submit. The fact that the two brothers had Innd in another school district than the one where their right to ,'ote was chal- lenged, has no bearin;..: on the question involved here, unless it can he shown that they intended to change their place of residence to the new location. They might own land in a dozen school districts, but, of course, could ,'ote in hut one. Even though they may intend to change their place of residence to the new location they may not have intended to make such change until nfter the date of the election or some subsequent date. "'e think the stat- utes grant them the privilege of deter- mining when they will relinquish their old residence for the new. If the uroth- ers contend that it was their intention to retain their voting residence in the old district, backed by the fact that they still have property interest in that district, we think they establishe(1 a right. to vote there that could not be easily overcome. From some facts given it might appear that they intended to establish a new residence, but the in- tent to do so and the particular datc of the change is known only to them. We are, therefore, of t'he opinion that the challenge of their right to votc cnnnot be sustained.