The Coconino sun., 1922-08-04
OFFICIAL OPINION
 AS TO SUPERVISORS

In connection with an opinion rem dered by Attorney General w. J. Gall braith in regard to the election of su- pervisors this fall, there seems to have been a widespread misunder- standing as to the effects of this opinion.
 In substance and effect the opinion is as follows: In those counties where supervisoral districts had not heretofore been ere ated, this fall it is mandatory to so divide those counties, and elect three new supervisors, one for each dis trict. This opinion did not refer to counties that had heretofore. under the former law, divided into districts, and elected their supervisors accord ing to the old optional law. The at toney generals opinion dealt with the law as found in the regular Ses- sion Laws of 1921.
 At the special session of the last legislature an effort was made by the legislature to change the 1921 law as interpreted by the official opinion of the attorney general, and it is this new law that is now causing consid- erable discussion.
 The subject of the new law passec at the special session is to amend and repeal certain laws pertaining to the boards of supervisors, and declaring an emergency, and the object of the law is to declare that only two super visors shall be elected in November, 1922, to be elected from the two su- pervisoral districts in each county, which shall not be represented by tho longtime supervisor.
 The attorney generals office hal rendered no opinion whatsoever upon the effect of the new law passed by the special session of the legislature, nor has this office declared this Jaw void. The attorney general has Adi- cated that there is some doubt as to it's validity. Our constitution provides as follows:
 "In calling such special session, the governor shall specify the subjects to be considered at such session, and at such session no laws shall be enacted except such as relate to the subjects mentioned in such call"
 To make the law passed by the special session valid, therefore, it | will be necessary to find it included in the governors call. The governors call for the last special session insofar as it may affect this law, provides as follows:
 "Section 5. To consider govern mental machinery, state, county and municipal, with view to more close ly co-ordinating, or abolishing certain | agencies and activities, and revising | expenditures in connection herewith"
 If this part of the governors call is sufficient to include the act of the | special session, then the special ses- sion law is of paramount importance. If this section of the governors call | is not broad enough to include the law passed by the special session, the law is then invalid. If the governors call had stated Ito consider govern mental machinery, state, county and municipal" this undoubtedly would have been sufficiently broad, but the subject has been restricted to consid- ering governmental machinery to the extent of more closely co-ordinating or abolishing, and revising expendi- lures in connection herewith. This would appear to limit the subject greatly.
 It is understood that a case has been instituted to have an official adjudication on this point. In the meantime, if the 1921 regular session law is followed, as interpreted by the attorney general, no confusion need arise. If the special session law is determined valid, the election pro- ceedings can be modified to that ex- tent, and if the special law is invalid, the proper course will have been car ried out.