Did Connecticut have to fill every state marshal vacancy up to each county’s statutory limit?

Plain-English summary

In October 2002, Connecticut’s AG concluded that the State Marshal Commission was free to leave vacancies below each county’s statutory cap. The law said appointments “shall not exceed” the stated number; that wording limited how many marshals could be appointed without requiring the commission to fill every slot.

State Marshal Commission at the time

The commission could choose a number below the county maximum. The opinion did not identify any minimum number of marshal appointments.

Prospective state marshals at the time

An open place beneath a county cap did not, by itself, require the commission to make another appointment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did every listed county marshal position have to be filled?
A: No. The AG read the listed numbers as ceilings, not mandatory appointment totals.

Q: Could the commission appoint more than the listed number in a county?
A: No. The statute’s “shall not exceed” language imposed an upper limit for each county.

Background and statutory framework

The commission asked whether it had discretion over vacant marshal positions. The AG relied on the ordinary meaning of “shall not exceed” and the rule that statutory words should have work to do. Reading each number as mandatory would leave that limiting phrase with no effect.

Citations and references

Statute: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38.

Case: Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 7 (1980).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2002-formal-opinions/mitchell-r-harris-state-marshal-commission-2002035-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticut

Original opinion text

Mitchell R. Harris, State Marshal Commission, 2002-035 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

October 22, 2002

Mitchell R. Harris

Chairman

State Marshal Commission

765 Asylum Avenue

260 Constitution Plaza

Hartford, CT 06105

Dear Chairman Harris:

You have requested our advice as to the required number of State Marshals in each county pursuant to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38. Specifically, you have requested a formal opinion of the Attorney General as to "whether the Commission has the discretion to determine whether to fill these vacancies or whether the Commission is required [to] fill all vacancies in every county up to the statutory maximum." We conclude that the Commission may, but is not required to, appoint state marshals to the maximum number allowed in each county by statute.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38 provides that

Sec. 6-38. Number of state marshals. The number of state marshals to be appointed for Hartford County shall not exceed seventy-two; for New Haven County, sixty-two; for New London County, thirty-eight; for Fairfield County, fifty-five; for Windham County, eighteen; for Litchfield County, thirty; for Middlesex Count, twenty-one; for Tolland County, twenty-two.
The plain meaning of the phrase "shall not exceed" in Section 6-38 is simply that no more than the statutory limit may be appointed. This section does not require a minimum number of appointments. The General Assembly could have required a specific number of State Marshals simply by stating that number. The use of the phrase "shall not exceed" strongly suggests that a lesser number may be appointed, but not more than the maximum. Furthermore, the phrase "shall not exceed" would be rendered superfluous if § 6-38 were to be read as requiring the appointment of the exact number of State Marshals listed for each county. Statutes should be construed so that no word, clause or sentence shall be superfluous, void or insignificant. Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 7 (1980).

Accordingly, it is our opinion that the Commission is not required to appoint State Marshals to the maximum number allowed in each county by statute.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL