Source: http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/opinions/documents/02me169opofjjs.htm
Timestamp: 2014-04-19 12:52:55
Document Index: 274804663

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', 'art 1', '§ 5', 'art 2', '§ 4', '§ 721', '§ 739', 'art 1', '§ 5', 'art\n2', '§ 4', '§ 739', '§ 1', '§ 722', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 724', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 739', 'art 1', 'art 2', '§ 739', '§ 5', '§ 50', '§ 7', '§ 202', 'art 1', '§ 5', 'art 2', '§ 4', '§ 711', '§ 698']

Skip Maine state header navigation State Search: Agencies | Online Services | Help Page Tools Page Tools Map addresses En español En français English Opinion of the Justices
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3
OF ARTICLE VI OF THE
ANGUS S. KING JR.,
DATED NOVEMBER 22,
ANSWERED NOVEMBER 25,
To the Honorable Justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial
accept my request for an Opinion of the Justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial
Court pursuant to Article VI, § 3 of the Maine Constitution on a series of
questions related to my legal authority regarding the evaluation of disputed
ballots and the certification of election results.
is no question that the ultimate authority to determine who will sit in the
Legislature is the purview of the respective chambers. My questions arise in the course of
exercising my constitutional duty to certify the apparent winners so they may be seated until such time as the
Legislature determines the final winners.
In the election of November 5,
2002, there remain several contested races. Some have concluded recounts, while some are continuing
recounts. An example in the House
of Representatives is the House District 80 race between Stanley A. Moody and
Elaine Fuller which has a final recount indicating one vote separates the
candidates, with 10 ballots in dispute. The Senate race between Leslie Fossel and Christopher Hall for the Senate
District 16 seat is particularly at issue because political control of the
Senate hangs in the balance. In
that race, the recount thus far has been narrowed to a 9 vote margin, with 63
votes disputed. The recount was
finalized on Tuesday, November 19. The candidates have since agreed to meet on Monday, November
25 to reopen the recount in an attempt to further reduce the number of disputed
By virtue of Article IV of the
Maine Constitution, I must take action to certify and summon the newly-elected
Legislature by Tuesday, November 26. Article IV, Part 1, § 5 provides in regard to the House of
Representatives that The Governor shall examine the returned copies of such
lists and 7 days before the first Wednesday of December biennially, shall issue
a summons to such persons as shall appear to have been elected by a plurality
of all votes returned, to attend and take their seats. Similarly,
Article IV, Part 2, § 4 provides for the Senate that The Governor shall, as soon as may be, examine the copies
of such lists, and at least 7 days before the said first Wednesday of December,
issue a summons to such persons, as shall appear to be elected by a plurality
of the votes in each senatorial district, to attend that day and take their
seats. These
constitutional directives are implemented through the statutory provisions
found at 21-A M.R.S.A. § 721, et seq. Relevant provisions are section 722
that describes how the Secretary of State must tabulate (list) the voting
results; section 724 that describes how an election certificate or notice of
apparent election (summons) is issued; and section 739 that provides the
Governor may request that the Secretary of State produce the ballots for a
given election.
constitutional obligation with respect to the House is to summon the person who
appears to have been elected by a
plurality of all votes returned;
with respect to the Senate I must summon the person who appears to be elected by a plurality of votes in
that senate district. However, by Tuesday, November 26, I
will be asked to certify and summon persons according to a Secretary of State
tabulation that does not count disputed ballots in determining the apparent
winners, and thus does not include all of the votes returned or cast in the
districts. In the two races
mentioned above, the number of disputed ballots are sufficient to change the
outcome of the race. The law in
21-A M.R.S.A. § 739 further
provides that I may request that the Secretary of State produce the ballots;
the intention of that provision is not clear. In the face of these various provisions, I am confronted
with the need to determine whether I am properly executing my constitutional
responsibilities. I seek the
advice of the Justices for an interpretation of my responsibilities so I may
appropriately discharge my obligations under the law to ensure that I certify
and summon the appropriate persons to appear in the Legislature.
believe the questions propounded constitute important questions of law on a
solemn occasion. In the case of
House District 80, it is clear that I will be presented with a tabulation from
the Secretary of State that does not include 10 disputed ballots which, if
counted, would determine who received the plurality of votes in that district. In Senate District 16, additional
recounting is expected. However,
the opposing parties have demonstrated diametrically opposed views of both the
process and outcome of that recount. The person I certify will take their seat as the critical 18th member of
a body otherwise equally divided between 17 Republicans and 17 Democrats. That person will be a voting member of
the Senate while that body determines who will be finally seated. I believe that the gravity of the
determination of this seat, upon which control of the Senate hinges, creates an
exigent circumstance. Timely
advice on the exercise of my authority regarding certification of the apparent
winners is critical given that any actions inconsistent with appropriate authority
may disrupt the orderly establishment of the 121st Legislature. Therefore I respectfully request an answer to the following
the Governor accept the tabulation of the Secretary of State as the sole basis
for his determination of what persons to summon and issue a certificate of
election, or does the Governor have authority independent of the Secretary of
State to determine the apparent winners of a legislative election?
the difference in language between Article IV, Part 1, § 5 and Article IV, Part
2, § 4 result in different responses to Question 1 as between the House of
Representatives and the Senate?
21-A M.R.S.A. § 739 provide the Governor with authority to evaluate disputed
ballots in making a determination of who to certify as having apparently received a plurality of votes in a
legislative election? 4. May the Governor certify and summon
persons different from the persons the Secretary of State tabulates as the
apparent winner of a legislative election?
receiving your advice and counsel on these important questions of law. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, /S/ Angus S. King, Jr.
[¶1] The Governor's questions ask us to determine whether he may or should
evaluate certain ballots from the recent election for the Senate and the House
of Representatives before summoning the apparent winners of that election. We respectfully respond, in summary,
that neither the Constitution nor the statutes of the State of Maine confer any
power, right, or authority upon the Governor to decide whether specific ballots
cast in the election of State Senators and Representatives should be counted or
rejected in determining who is the "apparent" winner. Our analysis follows.
[¶2] Preliminarily it is important to
understand the questions in context. The Governor recognizes, and we agree, that his role in the election
process does not extend beyond his responsibility to summon such persons as
shall appear to be elected by a plurality to attend upon their respective
houses and take their seats. Following the seating at the Governor's summons, it is ultimately those
members of the House and Senate who shall determine who has been elected to the
Senate and the House of Representatives of the State of Maine. While we are not unmindful of the role
that those summoned may play in determining the ultimate winners of the
election, the questions presented here relate not to identifying who has been
elected, but rather to determining who are the apparent winners sufficient to
summon those persons to Augusta.
[¶3] We turn then to the first issue that
must be addressed: whether or not the questions that the Governor has delivered
present us with a solemn occasion involving important questions of law. We conclude that they do.
[¶4] The doctrine of separation of powers,
expressly articulated at Article III of the Maine Constitution, would normally
dictate that we decline to answer questions presented by the Governor or the
Legislature regarding their respective authority. Me. Const. art.
III, §§ 1-2; Opinion of the Justices,
396 A.2d 219, 223 (Me. 1979). [¶5] A narrow exception to this fundamental
principle is created by Article VI, Section 3, which provides: "The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court shall be
obliged to give their opinion upon important questions of law, and upon solemn
occasions, when required by the Governor, Senate or House of Representatives."
Thus, when we receive a request for an advisory opinion from either
house of the Legislature or from the Governor, we first determine whether it is
within the scope of our constitutional authority to provide advisory opinions
only "upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions" pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Maine Constitution. Opinion of the Justices, 682 A.2d 661, 663 (Me. 1996).
[¶6] The following guideposts assist our determination on
whether a "solemn occasion" has been presented on an "important question[] of
law." First, the matter must be of
"live gravity," referring to the immediacy and seriousness of the
question. Opinion of the
Justices, 709 A.2d 1183, 1185 (Me.
1997). "A solemn occasion refers
to an unusual exigency, such an exigency as exists when the body making the
inquiry, having some action in view, has serious doubts as to its power and
authority to take such action under the Constitution or under existing
statutes." Id. In
addition, the questions presented must be sufficiently precise that we can
determine "the exact nature of the inquiry," Opinion of the Justices, 460 A.2d 1341, 1346 (Me. 1982), and we will not
answer questions that are "tentative, hypothetical and abstract." Opinion of the Justices, 330 A.2d 912, 915 (Me. 1975). [¶7] Although an
advisory opinion "has no precedential value and no conclusive effect as a
judgment upon any party," Opinion of the Justices, 396 A.2d at 223, such opinions provide guidance on present and future
controversies. The Justices have
advice being given to guide the Governor in the performance of a public and
constitutional function of government, and having been followed, public policy,
at least, requires that strong and compelling reasons be presented before the
Court sitting en banc will hold an
act by the Chief Executive of this nature invalid when taken in pursuance of a
construction of the organic law given upon request under the constitution by a
majority of the Court.
ex rel. Cummings v. Eastman, 126 Me. 147,
151, 136 A. 810, 812 (1927). [¶8] Thus, the
determination that a question presents a "solemn occasion" is of significant
import, and we will not find such an occasion to exist except in those
circumstances when the facts in support of the alleged solemn occasion are
[¶9] A solemn occasion has been presented on
the facts before us. Following
general elections of the members of the Maine Senate and House, the Secretary
of State is required to tabulate the election returns and forward them to the
Governor. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 722
(Supp. 2001). The Governor is then required by law to issue an election
certificate or a notice of an apparent election to individuals who, from his
examination of the returns, appear to be the winners of the respective
elections by a plurality of the votes cast. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 5,
pt. 2, § 4; 21-A M.R.S.A. § 724. Such an election occurred on November 5, 2002, and Governor King
must accomplish his duty to issue a certificate or notice at least seven days
before December 4, 2002. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 5, pt. 2, § 4.
[¶10] The Governor represents that the results of several races are disputed,
that recounts have failed to resolve the disputes, and that the number of
disputed ballots in more than one such race could determine the outcome of that
race. He also represents that the
tabulation by the Secretary of State will not include the disputed ballots
among those counted.
[¶11] The essence of the questions can be
summarized succinctly: in light of the Governor's uncertainty as to the import
of 21-A M.R.S.A. § 739 (Supp. 2001) and other pertinent constitutional and
statutory provisions, does the Governor have the authority to investigate and
"evaluate disputed ballots in making a determination" independent of the
Secretary of State's tabulations. The inquiry is sufficiently precise for us to determine its exact
nature, Opinion of the Justices, 460
A.2d at 1341, and involves constitutionally mandated conduct on the part of the
Governor under circumstances where the Governor has "serious doubts as to [his]
power and authority." Opinion
of the Justices, 709 A.2d at 1185. Moreover, the Justices have
historically found similar questions to present a solemn occasion. E.g., Opinion of the Justices, 143 Me. 417, 417-21, 88 A.2d 151, 151-53 (1948).
[¶12] We therefore conclude that the Governor's questions present a solemn
occasion regarding important questions of law.
[¶13] The relevant provision of the Maine
Constitution relating to the role of the Governor in the election of members of
the House of Representatives is found in Article IV, Part 1, Section 5:
Fair copies of the lists of votes shall
be attested by the municipal officers and the clerks of the cities and towns
and the city and town clerks respectively shall cause the same to be delivered
into the office of the Secretary of State forthwith. The Governor shall examine
the returned copies of such lists and 7 days before the first Wednesday of
December biennially, shall issue a summons to such persons as shall appear to
have been elected by a plurality of all
votes returned, to attend and take their seats. All such lists shall be laid before the House of
Representatives on the first Wednesday of December biennially, and they shall
finally determine who are elected.
The relevant provisions of the
Maine Constitution relating to the role of the Governor in the election of
members of the Senate are found in Article IV, Part 2, Sections 3-5:
Section 3. Election of Senators; lists of votes delivered forthwith. The
meetings within this State for the election of Senators shall be notified, held
and regulated and the votes received, sorted, counted, declared and recorded,
in the same manner as those for Representatives. Fair copies of the lists of votes shall be attested by the
clerks of the cities and towns or other duly authorized officials and sealed up
in open meetings and such officials shall cause said lists to be delivered into
the office of the Secretary of State forthwith. Section 4. Lists of votes examined by Governor; summons to persons who
appear to be elected. The Governor shall, as soon as may be,
examine the copies of such lists, and at least 7 days before the
said first Wednesday of December, issue a summons to such persons, as shall
appear to be elected by a plurality of the votes in each senatorial district,
to attend that day and take their seats.
Section 5. Determination of Senators elected; procedure for filling vacancies. The Senate shall, on said first Wednesday of December, biennially determine who is elected by a plurality of votes to be Senator in each district. . . . [¶14] The statute referred to in the
Governor's question, 21-A M.R.S.A. § 739, reads in pertinent part:
On request, a municipal
clerk or the Secretary of State, or both, shall produce any ballots or incoming
voting lists in their custody before the Governor, either branch of the
Legislature, any legislative committee or a court of competent jurisdiction.
[¶15] Although the constitutional provisions
regarding election of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives
have been amended several times, the requirement that each house determines who
has been elected to it has remained constant. The role of the Governor to examine the copies of the lists
of votes provided to him by the Secretary of State and to summon to the
respective houses persons who appear to have been elected has remained
unchanged with respect to the Senate since the adoption of the original Maine
Constitution in 1819, and with respect to the House since 1864.
[¶16] Speaking to the limited role of the Governor and the then-existing
Executive Council, the Justices said in 1845: It
is presumed the returns alone, are to be examined by the Governor and Council
in regard to senatorial elections. If any error occurs, by being so guided, it will be corrected by the
senate, who are constituted judges generally of their own elections. . . .
[T]he returns are conclusive upon the Governor and Council in regard to
senatorial elections . . . .[1] Opinion of the Justices, 25 Me. 567, 569 (1845). A few years later the Justices said: "The Governor and
Council are only authorized to ascertain who appear to be elected Senators, and
have no power to determine who are elected. That power is entrusted to the Senate alone, and it must
determine whether those appearing upon the �lists' to have been elected, were
elected and had the qualifications required for Senators." Opinion of the Justices, 35 Me. 563, 572 (1854).
[¶17] Beginning in the 1850s, the Legislature
enacted several statutes defining the role of the Governor and Council in
examining the lists of votes. For
example, a statute gave the Governor and Council the authority to correct
errors in the returns in county elections. R.S. ch. 78, § 5 (1857). The Justices stated that this authority was narrowly
limited, Opinion of the Justices, 64 Me.
588, 590 (1871), and that it did not extend to senatorial elections, Opinion
of the Justices, 64 Me. 596, 598
(1875). An extension of this
statute to other elections, including legislative elections, purported to give
the Governor and Council the authority to count votes and hear testimony, P.L.
1877, ch. 212, but the Justices stated that this statute did not give the
Governor and Council the authority to reject ballots, Opinion of the
Justices, 70 Me. 560, 566-67 (1880). [¶18] The nineteenth-century opinions on this
topic were summed up in a 1924 opinion by a minority of Justices as follows: What is the nature of the duties which
the Governor and Council perform in determining the result of elections? . . .
[T]hey were almost entirely ministerial, and the Governor and Council were in
no sense Judges of elections and had no authority to hear testimony outside the
records and returns forwarded by the several town clerks except as the
Legislature had expressly authorized it in connection with the determination of
the meaning of the returns or in showing that the records did not correspond
the Justices, 124 Me. 453, 494, 126 A. 354,
373 (1924).
[¶19] A significant statement on the
Governor's authority in the last century came in a contested House election in
1948. The relevant statute, R.S.
ch. 5, § 50 (1944), authorized the Governor and Council to "count and declare
for any person all votes appearing by the returns to have been intentionally
cast for him" and hear testimony to determine the voters' intent. The Governor and Council asked the
Justices whether they should count certain disputed ballots. The response in the Opinion of the
Justices is relevant here:
[T]he authority and power of the
Governor and Council in respect to the election of a Representative to the
Legislature are defined and limited by . . . the Constitution of this
State. Under the Constitution the
House of Representatives of the Legislature is the sole judge of the elections
and qualifications of its own members. R.S., 1944, Chap. 5, Sec. 50 recognizes the controlling force of these
constitutional provisions by limiting its application, in determining the
election of a Representative to the Legislature, to the examination and
correction of returns. Neither the
Constitution nor any statute confers right, power or authority on the Governor
and Council to decide whether any ballots cast in an election of a
Representative to the Legislature shall be counted or rejected. 143 Me. at 421-11, 88 A.2d at
153-54. The Justices emphasized
this point eight years later when they advised the Governor and Council to
certify to the United States Congress the apparent winner of an election
without examining or considering ballots then in dispute. Opinion of the Justices, 152 Me. 212, 218-219, 142 A.2d 532, 535
(1956). The prohibition against
gubernatorial examination of ballots addressed in that Opinion of the Justices
applies equally to disputed races in the Maine Senate and House of
[¶20] In 1975, the Legislature removed the
Governor's statutory authority to correct the returns. P.L. 1975, ch. 621, § 7; P.L. 1975, ch.
771, § 202. Presently there exists
no statute explicitly giving the Governor the power to correct returns or
recount ballots.[2]
[¶21] With that background, we proceed to the
questions propounded. RESPONSES TO THE GOVERNOR'S QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1: Must the Governor accept the tabulation of the
Secretary of State as the sole basis for his determination of what persons to
summon and issue a certificate of election, or does the Governor have authority
independent of the Secretary of State to determine the apparent winners of a
legislative election?
[¶22] We answer Question 1 as follows. In the context of the facts presented here, the Governor must accept the
tabulation of the Secretary of State as the sole basis for the determination of
what persons to summon. The
Governor does not have independent authority to examine and accept or reject
ballots when determining the apparent winner. The Constitution gives the Governor the authority to examine
copies of the lists of votes that have been delivered to the Secretary of State
from the towns and cities. From an
examination of the copies of the lists, which generate the Secretary of State's
tabulation, the Governor then issues a summons to attend the session of the
Legislature to those persons who appear to have been elected.
QUESTION 2: Does the
difference in language between Article IV, Part 1, § 5 and Article IV, Part 2,
§ 4 result in different responses to Question 1 as between the House of
QUESTION 3: Does
ballots in making a determination of who to certify as having apparently received
a plurality of votes in a legislative election?
QUESTION 4: May the
Governor certify and summon persons different from the persons the Secretary of
State tabulates as the apparent winner of a legislative election?
[¶26] In the context of the questions presented and for the reasons stated
above, we answer Question 4 in the negative. Dated: November 25, 2002
/s/ Leigh I. Saufley Chief Justice
Calkins /s/ Jon D. Levy Associate Justices
The lists of votes are also referred to as "returns" in some of the Opinions of the Justices and in statutes. E.g., 21-A M.R.S.A § 711 (Supp. 2001). In contrast to the lists, which are delivered from the towns and cities to the Secretary of State, ballots remain in the custody of the municipality unless a recount is triggered. Id. §§ 698(2-A), 737-A.
[2] We express
no opinion as to whether such a statute would be constitutional.