Navigation Top
AGO Logo Graphic
AGO Header Image
File a Complaint
Contact the AGO
AGO 1954 No. 296 - August 12, 1954
AGO Opinion Header Image
Don Eastvold | 1953-1956 | Attorney General of Washington

ELECTIONS ‑- SPECIAL ‑- ROAD AND BRIDGE BOND AUTHORIZATION.

A road and bridge bond proposal may be submitted to the voters at a special election in conjunction with the primary election.

                                                                  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                                 August 12, 1954

Honorable Reuben C. Youngquist
Prosecuting Attorney
Skagit County
Mount Vernon, Washington                                                                                               Cite as:  AGO 53-55 No. 296

Dear Sir:

            In a recently acknowledged letter you ask the opinion of this office upon this question:

            "Is it possible to submit a bridge bond issue in a third class county to the voters in conjunction with the state primary election?"

            In our opinion your question is to be answered in the affirmative.

                                                                     ANALYSIS

            In that chapter of the code dealing with the issuance of bonds for county roads and bridges, it is provided by RCW 36.76.090:

            "The election may be held at such times and in the manner provided for holding general elections in this state, or it may be held as a special election at such time as the board may designate.  * * *"  (Emphasis supplied)

             [[Orig. Op. Page 2]]

            This section provides for the holding of a special election at any time the board designates.  We see no reason why the board may not designate the primary election date as the time for holding a special road and bridge bond election, so long as the other provisions concerning such special elections are complied with.  (See for instance RCW 36.76.110).

            In your letter you directed our attention to the general election laws, RCW 29.13.010 and the Session Laws from which it was derived.  There does appear to be some ambiguity in these laws, but we do not believe they are involved in the present problem.  The case ofDesimone v. Shields, 152 Wash. 353, 277 Pac. 829, decided, in discussing that section now codified in RCW 29.13.010, that in line with the general law, this act, being general in nature, did not repeal prior special acts.  The law dealing with county roads and bridges specifically provides for special elections, and so under the Desimone case would not be affected by the general election laws.

Very truly yours,

DON EASTVOLD
Attorney General

KEITH S. BERGMAN
Assistant Attorney General

Content Bottom Graphic
AGO Logo