Opinion ID: 2310976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard and Basis of Review

Text: [¶ 4] Initially, plaintiffs note that the court employed a deferential standard of review with respect to plaintiffs' 80C action. They argue that an independent review is mandated, and we agree. The statutory grant of judicial review explicitly provides that [i]n reviewing the decision of the Secretary of State, the [Superior] court shall determine whether the description of the subject matter is understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time and will not mislead a reasonable voter who understands the proposed legislation into voting contrary to his wishes. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 905(2) (1993). (emphasis added). The statute further provides that: The standard of review [before the Supreme Judicial Court] shall be the same as for the Superior Court. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 905(3). [3] Accordingly both the Superior Court and we are required to independently determine whether the ballot question is understandable and not misleading. See also, Wagner v. Secretary of State, 663 A.2d 564, 568 (Me. 1995). [¶ 5] Plaintiffs next contend that the ballot question must be reviewed not only with reference to section 905, but with reference also to section 906 and the Maine Constitution. Plaintiffs refer to the following language: The Secretary of State shall write the question in a simple, clear, concise and direct manner that describes the subject matter of the people's veto or direct initiative 21-A M.R.S.A. § 906(6)(B); and, the Secretary of State shall prepare the ballots in such form as to present the question or questions concisely and intelligibly. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 20. Plaintiffs contend that the Secretary's description of the subject matter violates section 905, the clarity and simplicity requirements of section 906(6)(B), and the intelligibility requirement of section 20. In addition to their section 905 allegations, they contend that the word putting is unclear, and that the phrase Class A crime is not simple or intelligible. [¶ 6] Both section 906(6)(B) and section 20 of the Constitution further the goal set forth in section 905 that the ballot question be understandable and not misleading. For the purposes of the present case, the requirements that the question be clear, simple, and intelligible are subsumed in the standards provided in section 905. If a question is understandable and not misleading, it follows that it is not lacking in clarity and is intelligible. Thus, we independently review whether the description of the subject matter of the ballot question is understandable and will not mislead.