Judges: STEVE CLARK, Attorney General
Filed Date: 11/14/1989
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
T.L. Goodwin, Colonel Director, Arkansas State Police #3 Natural Resources Drive P.O. Box 5901 Little Rock, AR 72215
Dear Colonel Goodwin:
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding Act 651 and Act 926 of 1989. You note in your request that both of these acts amend certain sections of A.C.A.
Although Act 926 does appear at first glance to deal more comprehensively with these particular Code sections, adding new provisions and seemingly governing the entire subject, it is my opinion that effect can and must be given to both enactments. This conclusion is based upon a construction of the two acts, with the aid of general rules of statutory construction, since we do not have the benefit of case law authority directly on point.
It is well-established that repeals by implication are not favored in construing legislative enactments. As expressed by the Arkansas Supreme Court:
We have long followed the common law maxim that statutes on the same subject will be construed together and reconciled to effect the legislative intent. We are required to give effect to both enactments unless it is impossible to do so. [Citation omitted.]
Cummings v. Washington County Election Comm'n,
It must also be recognized that the rule requiring that statutes on the same general subject be reconciled and construed together, if possible, is particularly applicable if two acts on the same subject were enacted during the same legislative session. Sargent v. Cole,
With these precepts in mind, it is my opinion that a repeal by implication will only be found in this instance if these acts fall within the following rule:
. . . [W]hen a later act covers the entire subject matter of an earlier one, adding new provisions and plainly showing that it was intended as a substitute for the first one, then the older act is repealed by implication. [Citation omitted.]1
Nance v. Williams,
A review of the text of these amendments compels the conclusion that Act 926 does not ". . . plainly [show] that it was a substitute" for Act 651. Nance v. Williams, supra. The statutory rules of construction do not limit us to examining any single part of a law. Sargent v. Cole, supra. In discerning legislative intent, each section of the act is read in light of every other section, and the object and purpose of the act must be considered. Chism v. Phelps,
It is therefore my opinion that these two acts can be construed so that all of their parts will be effective. The amendments added by each act are, in my opinion, all valid.
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker.