Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-610

Opinion No. 610 'Elections-Candida,ws-Withdrawal of Nomin~Vacancies-Title of Act, Sufficiency of-Statut~, Construction of. HELD; One who petitioned for the nomination for the office of state sen- ator and afterward received it at the 418 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL primary election cannot withdraw. The title of Chapter 6, Laws of 1033, i~ sufficient since the Constitution only requires that the subject of a bill shall IJe clearly expressed in its title. September 13, 1934. Your letter and a copy of the opinion which you gave the county clerk of Carter County, concerning the right of a person who petitioned for the IlOmi- nation for the office of state senator and afterwards received it at the pri- mary election held on July 17, 1934, to withdraw, are before me. Though there is some room for doubt, I think you arrived at the correct con- clusion, namely, that the candidate cannot now withdraw. Your position is supported by State v. Hamilton, 111 Pac. 1026. but is opposed by Elswick Y. Ratliff, 179 S. W. 11. The Supreme Court of California in Bordwell v. Wil- liams, 159 Pac. 869, mentioned both cases but did not approve the decision in either because it was not necessary. The fact that on August 28, 1930, the then Attorney General rendered an opinion to the eHect that a candidate nominated under like circumstances as the candidate in question could not withdraw so as to create a vacancr, (13 Opinions of Attorney General. 278) and that the legislature which has twice met in regular session since then has apparently acquiesced in his con- struction of the statute (Section 6H. H. C. M. 1021, as a mended), should not he overlooked in this connection. PUl- ler Ins. Agency Y. Porter, 03 Mont. 567; State Y. District Court, 49 Mont. 146; 50 C. J. 1025.) Whatever may he said of the title of Chapter 98, Laws of 1927, and the title of Chapter 34, Laws of 1929, there can- not be any doubt that the title of Chap- ter 6, Laws of 1933, is sufficient. 'l'he rule enunciated in your opinion to the effect that "the title of a statute must incorporate the body of the statute," is altogether too broad. Section 23 of Article V of the Constitution only re- quires that. the subject of a bill shall be clearly expressed in its title. It is not necessary that the title shall em- hody the exact limitations or qualifi, cations contained in the bill itself which are germane to the purpose of the legis- lature, if the general subject of the measure is clearly expressed in the title, (State v. Anaconda C. :\1. Co., 23 Mont. 498; State Y. Erickson, 75 ~Iont. 429; 59 C. J. 804-807.)