Both parties contend that its position is supported by the plain language of the statute and is consistent with the overall statutory scheme. When faced with a question of statutory construction, we seek to discern the intent of the Legislature by examining the plain language contained in the statute and consider the particular language in the context of the whole regulatory scheme. In the instant case, however, our review of the statutory language and statutory scheme governing elections, Title 21-A, provides little guidance in resolving the question presented. The plain meaning of the statutory language could be construed to support either party's position. Further, a review of the statutory scheme reveals that either party's interpretation of the statute could lead to an illogical result.
Board members serve for a period of three years.
Accordingly, the State's interpretation could lead to a situation in which, for a period of about one year, one or two members of a local board are members of a disqualified political party. Nevertheless, the green party's interpretation also leads to an illogical result. We turn next to the legislative history of the statute. Each party contends that the statute's history supports its respective interpretation. We find the interpretation propounded by the State to be more persuasive.