Title: Fair Elections Portland, Inc. v. City of Portland

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 
2023 ME 9 
Docket: 
Cum-22-91 
Argued: 
November 3, 2022 
Decided: 
January 26, 2023 
Revised: 
April 6, 2023 
Panel: 
STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ. 
FAIR ELECTIONS PORTLAND, INC., et al. 
v. 
CITY OF PORTLAND 
JABAR, J. 
[¶1]  Fair Elections Portland, Inc., and ten individual voters (collectively,
FEP) appeal from a Superior Court order (Cumberland County, McKeon, J.) 
denying their M.R. Civ. P. 80B petition for review of the City of Portland’s 
decision to classify their proposed modification to the Portland City Charter, 
which would establish a public financing mechanism for city elections, as a 
“revision” of, instead of an “amendment” to, the charter.  We dismiss the appeal 
as moot. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The classification of a proposed charter modification as a revision 
rather than an amendment is significant because under the Home Rule Act, 
2 
30-A M.R.S. §§ 2101-2109 (2021),1 a proposed amendment must be submitted 
directly to the voters in a municipal election, see 30-A M.R.S. §§ 2104(1)-(2), 
2105(2), whereas a proposed revision can be submitted to the voters only upon 
recommendation of a charter commission, see 30-A M.R.S. §§ 2102(1)-(2), 
2103(5)(D), (6), 2105(1).  See Fair Elections Portland, Inc. v. City of Portland 
(FEP I), 2021 ME 32, ¶ 4, 252 A.3d 504.
[¶3]  After classifying FEP’s proposed charter modification as a revision, 
the City formed a charter commission to, inter alia, consider the proposed 
mechanism for public campaign financing.  The Charter Commission then
recommended a modification to the City Charter establishing a mechanism for 
public campaign financing that was similar to the one proposed by FEP and that
was put before voters in November 2022.  Voters approved the measure, which 
received 65.3% of the vote.  City of Portland, General Municipal Election on 
11/8/2022: Referendum Results, https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/
dec12b09-575a-4da0-94bb-db63f30f272d?cache=1800 
[https://perma.cc/
E95N-RGZS] (last visited Jan. 17, 2023). 
1  Section 2102 of the Home Rule Act has been amended effective after the City Council voted not 
to send the proposed modification to the voters, but the amendments do not affect our analysis here.  
See P.L. 2019, ch. 149, §§ 1-2 (effective Sept. 19, 2019) (codified at 30-A M.R.S. § 2102(3)(B), (5)(A) 
(2021)).  For consistency, all citations to the Home Rule Act in this opinion are to the 2021 version of 
the statutes. 
 
3 
[¶4]  FEP’s proposed charter modification reads as follows: 
Section 12.  Public Financing of Municipal Elections 
The city council shall establish and fund a mechanism 
providing public campaign funds to qualified candidates for mayor, 
city council, and school board.
The mechanism must provide 
sufficient funds to allow candidates who meet qualifying criteria to 
conduct competitive campaigns, must be voluntary, must limit the 
amount of private funds a candidate may raise, must only be 
available to candidates who demonstrate public support, and must 
be limited to candidates who enter into a binding agreement not to 
accept private contributions other than those allowed by the public 
funding program.  The mechanism must be available by the 
2021 municipal elections. 
[¶5]  The Charter Commission’s proposed modification reads as follows: 
Section 12.  Public financing of municipal elections. 
The city council shall establish and fully fund a City of 
Portland Clean Election Fund (hereinafter, the “Clean Election 
Fund” or the “Fund”) to provide public campaign funds to qualified 
candidates for elected municipal offices.  The Clean Election Fund 
must be available to candidates in municipal elections beginning in 
FY 2023-2024. Candidate participation in the Clean Election Fund 
shall be voluntary. 
Beginning in FY 2023-2024 to allow for implementation for 
the November 2023 election, the city council shall provide an 
independent allocation from the city’s budget each year to ensure 
the Clean Election Fund is sustained at a level that facilitates 
competitive campaigns for participating candidates who meet 
qualifying criteria.  The Clean Election Fund shall be administered 
by the city clerk and the city council shall appropriate sufficient 
funds to ensure there are adequate resources, including paid staff, 
to effectively administer the Fund. 
4 
The city council shall maintain an ordinance directing the 
operation of the Clean Election Fund.  The ordinance shall direct 
that the Clean Election Fund must: 
(a) 
Limit the amount of private funds a participating 
candidate may raise; 
(b)
Be limited to candidates who
i. 
demonstrate public support; 
ii. 
enter into a binding agreement stating that 
the candidate will not accept private 
contributions other than those which are 
permitted by the Clean Election Fund; and 
iii. 
agree to participate in at least one (1) city-
sponsored forum or voter education event.
(c) 
Require that all unused funds from a participating
candidate’s campaign be returned to the Clean Election 
Fund within one hundred (100) days after the date of 
the election. 
The city council may adopt additional regulations and 
ordinances not inconsistent with this section. 
City of Portland, Portland Charter Commission – Final Report: BALLOT 
QUESTION #3—Clean Elections, https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/
42c7a724-1d31-4c4b-97aa-712a72400732?cache=1800 
[https://perma.cc/
5USS-NKZ8] (last visited Jan. 17, 2023).  The same ballot question also 
proposed a new section 13 of the charter, which would adopt campaign finance 
rules for all candidates for municipal offices.  Id.  
[¶6]  After voters approved the modification proposed by the Charter 
Commission (the Clean Election Fund) during the November 2022 election, we 
 
5 
issued an order requiring FEP to show cause why the matter pending before us
should not be dismissed as moot.  FEP contends that the case is not moot 
because the measure could still be considered by voters and given effect as 
written because the Clean Election Fund, which has now been adopted by 
voters, is not yet “valid and recognizable” and it is not identical to FEP’s 
proposed charter modification. It also contends that even if the matter is moot,
we should reach the merits under the exceptions to the mootness doctrine 
because the public has an interest in the stable and efficient administration of 
the Home Rule Act by municipal officers statewide, we have not yet conclusively 
resolved this important question of law, and by not reaching the merits of the 
matter the City of Portland’s position will act as precedent that has the potential
to be applied to other Maine charters and charter modifications.   
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶7]  As noted, FEP challenges the actions of the City of Portland
determining that the voters’ initiative promoted by FEP to establish a public 
financing mechanism for city elections would effectuate a revision to the
Portland City Charter, rather than an amendment, and therefore declining to 
conduct a referendum vote on the proposed modification.   
6 
A. 
Mootness 
[¶8]  Because FEP seeks a holding that its proposed charter modification 
was an amendment, rather than a revision, and should therefore be presented 
to the voters, and because in the November 2022 election voters approved a 
question on the ballot establishing a mechanism for public campaign financing
that was proposed by the Charter Commission—the Clean Election Fund—the 
question of mootness necessarily hinges on the similarities and differences 
between these competing proposals.  If the Clean Election Fund is substantially
similar to FEP’s proposed charter modification, there is no real and substantial 
controversy, and this appeal is moot and therefore not justiciable.  See Mainers 
for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 2016 ME 57, ¶¶ 5-6, 
136 A.3d 714 (“An issue is moot when there remains no real and substantial 
controversy, admitting of specific relief through a judgment of conclusive 
character.” (quotation marks omitted)). 
1. 
FEP’s Proposed Charter Modification 
[¶9]  FEP’s proposed charter modification sought to add, as section 12 of 
the Portland City Charter, a requirement that the City Council “establish and 
fund a mechanism providing public campaign funds to qualified candidates for 
mayor, city council, and school board” that would provide “sufficient funds to 
 
7 
allow candidates who meet qualifying criteria to conduct competitive 
campaigns.”  The “qualifying criteria” required by FEP’s proposed charter 
modification would include that the program: (1) “be voluntary”; (2) “limit the 
amount of private funds a candidate may raise”; (3) “only be available to 
candidates who demonstrate public support”; and (4) “be limited to candidates 
who enter into a binding agreement not to accept private contributions other
than those allowed by the public funding program.”   
2. 
Clean Election Fund 
[¶10]  The Clean Election Fund accomplishes all of the same goals as 
FEP’s proposed charter modification, with some additions.  The Clean Election 
Fund, added as section 12 of the Portland City Charter, requires that the City 
Council “establish and fully fund a City of Portland Clean Election Fund . . . to 
provide public campaign funds to qualified candidates for elected municipal 
offices.”  (Emphasis added.)  The Clean Election Fund uses the phrase “elected 
municipal offices,” which broadens the scope of the public funding mechanism 
from the “mayor, city council, and school board” positions proposed by FEP.   
[¶11]  The Clean Election Fund also clarifies the language around the 
funding mechanism.  Whereas FEP’s proposed charter modification would 
require the public campaign funding mechanism to “provide sufficient funds to 
8 
allow candidates . . . to conduct competitive campaigns,” the Clean Election 
Fund is more specific and comprehensive, requiring that the City Council “fully 
fund” the Clean Election Fund by “provid[ing] an independent allocation from 
the city’s budget each year to ensure the Clean Election Fund is sustained at a 
level that facilitates competitive campaigns for participating candidates” and, 
separately, that the City Council “appropriate sufficient funds to ensure there 
are adequate resources, including paid staff, to effectively administer the Fund.”  
(Emphasis added.)  The difference between fully funding and sufficiently
funding the program is inconsequential because the outcome is the same—the 
establishment of a public campaign funding program that allows qualifying 
candidates to conduct competitive campaigns. 
[¶12]  Regarding qualifying criteria, the Clean Election Fund includes all 
of the same qualifying criteria as FEP’s proposed charter modification: (1) that 
participation “be voluntary,” (2) that “the amount of private funds a 
participating candidate may raise” be limited, (3) that the program be “limited 
to candidates who demonstrate public support,” and (4) that the funds be 
available only to candidates who will “enter into a binding agreement stating 
that the candidate will not accept private contributions other than those which 
are permitted by the Clean Election Fund.”  However, the Clean Election Fund 
 
9 
goes further and requires that qualified candidates “agree to participate in at 
least one (1) city-sponsored forum or voter education event” and that “all 
unused funds . . . be returned to the Clean Election Fund.”  Finally, the Clean 
Election Fund includes language that allows the City Council to “adopt
additional regulations and ordinances not inconsistent with [section 12].”   
[¶13] 
In addition to the section 12 language, the ballot question 
approved by the voters added section 13 to the charter, which establishes 
campaign finance rules.  City of Portland, Portland Charter Commission – Final 
Report: 
BALLOT 
QUESTION 
#3—Clean 
Elections, 
https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/42c7a724-1d31-4c4b-97aa-
712a72400732?cache=1800 [https://perma.cc/5USS-NKZ8] (last visited 
Jan. 17, 2023).  Because these rules govern campaign contributions, spending, 
and reporting for all candidates, and are not exclusive to candidates using the 
Clean Election Fund established by section 12, the provisions of section 13 are
of no consequence to our analysis. 
B. 
Conclusion 
[¶14]  Because the Clean Election Fund is substantially similar to FEP’s 
proposed charter modification, with no conflicts, the issue on appeal is moot 
and therefore not justiciable.  The requirement that the program be fully funded 
10 
under the Clean Election Fund, as opposed to sufficiently funded under FEP’s 
proposed modification, ensures that the program not only meets but exceeds 
the funding requirements sought by FEP.  FEP wanted a public campaign 
financing program for local elections, and it got one.  The issue is moot. 
[¶15]  Further, there is no reason for us to hold that any of the exceptions 
to the mootness doctrine apply. Exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply 
when  
(1) sufficient collateral consequences will result from the 
determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; 
(2) the appeal contains questions of great public concern that, in 
the interest of providing future guidance to the bar and public we 
may address; or (3) the issues are capable of repetition but evade 
review because of their fleeting or determinate nature.   
See Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, 2016 ME 57, ¶ 7, 136 A.3d 714 (quotation 
marks omitted).  In its memorandum in response to the show cause order, FEP 
contends that all three exceptions apply, but it focuses on the public concern 
exception, arguing that we need to give guidance to municipalities regarding a 
standard to determine whether a measure is a revision or an amendment.  We 
disagree.  In FEP I, we thoroughly discussed the meaning of “revision” and 
“amendment” under the statute.  2021 ME 32, ¶¶ 28-34, 252 A.3d 504.  We held 
that determining whether a proposed charter modification was an amendment 
 
11 
or a revision was a mixed question of fact and law, and that framework is more 
than adequate guidance for municipalities.  Id. ¶¶ 33-38.   
The entry is: 
Appeal dismissed. 
Benjamin Gaines, Esq. (orally), Gaines Law, LLC, Portland, and John R. 
Brautigam, Esq., John R. Brautigam, Esq., LLC, Falmouth, for appellants Fair 
Elections Portland, Inc., and ten individual voters 
Jen Thompson, Esq., and Amy R. McNally, Esq. (orally), City of Portland, 
Portland, for appellee City of Portland 
Cumberland County Superior Court docket number AP-2021-32 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY