Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-281

Opinion No. 281. Elections-Qultlifications of Electors -Fort Peck-Federal Re.,ervations. HELD: 1. Persons residing upon lands in the Fort Peck area, within the borders over which the War De- partment has assumed exclusive juris- diction, do not become residents so as to entitle them to register and vote in Valley County Montana. 2. Such persons, however, by re- siding in the Fort Peck Reservation, do not necessarily lose such legal resi- dence as they may have acquired in another jurisdiction. Mr. H. R. Bjorklund Clerk and Recorder Glasgow, Montana May 9, 1936. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 6, 1936, in which you state that Mr. Dignan, your Coun- ty Attorney, advises you that anyone residing upon the lands in the Fort Peck area, within the borders over which the War Department has as- sumed exclusive jurisdiction, do not become residents so as to entitle them to register and vote in Valley County, Montana. This is to advise that in our opinion Mr. Dignan is correct in his state- ment, and that employees of the United States government, residing within the Fort Peck area, do not gain residence so as to entitle them to vote in Valley County. I wish to call your attention to the last paragraph of the opinion recently given to Mr. Dignan by this office on the sub.iect of taxa- tion. The exclusive iurisdiction of the United States extends only to such lands as were purchased by the United States, with the consent of the state. That persons residing on such lands do not thereby gain a residence for the purpose of voting in Valley Coun- ty, is supported by Sinks v. Reese, 19 Ohio St. 306, 2 Am. Rep. 397. The United States Supreme Court in Lea- venworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S., 525· at pp. 532, 536, said of this case: "And it was held that, upon the pur- chase of the territory by the United States, with the consent of the legis- lature of the State, the general gov- ernment becomes invested with the exclusive jurisdiction over it and its appurtenances in all cases whatso- ever; and that the inmates of such asylum resident within the territory, being within such exclusive jurisdic- tion, were not residents of the State so as to entitle them to vote, within the meaning of the Constitution, which conferred the elective franchise upon its residents alone." See also 6 Opinions of Attorney General (U. S.) 577, in the case of the Armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia, and 10 Opinions of the Attorney Gen- eral (U. S.) 35, in the case of the New York Post Office site. It is understood, of course, that while persons do not gain a residence in Valley County for the purpose of voting, this does not mean that such persons lose such legal residence as they may have acquired in other juris- dictions by reason of residing in such area.