Opinion ID: 2310976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of the Word Putting

Text: [¶ 7] With reference to section 905, plaintiffs argue that in substituting the word putting for introduc[ing] by any means, the Secretary rendered the question misleading. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the question will mislead reasonable voters, who understand the proposed legislation, into voting contrary to their wishes. Merely demonstrating that the question creates a misleading impression about the legislation is not enough. In Wagner v. Secretary of State, 663 A.2d 564 (Me.1995), we held that: Although the question may inaccurately suggest the legislation will limit the actions of future state legislatures, it is not misleading within the meaning of section 905(2). Id. at 568. [¶ 8] Plaintiffs contend that the initiative language, cause, by any means, the introduction of, suggests that accidental as well as intentional conduct will be subject to Class A criminal penalties, and that the word putting suggests that only intentional conduct is prohibited. They suggest that a reasonable voter may be convinced that the initiative criminalizes unintentional conduct, and that such a voter may be misled by the question into believing that only intentional conduct is criminalized. They theorize that voters who enter the voting booth with the intent to vote against the initiative (because they do not want to criminalize unintentional conduct) may change their minds, if they interpret the word putting to mean that only intentional conduct will be criminalized. [¶ 9] The use of the word putting is not misleading within the meaning of § 905(2) because its meaning is similar to introduction, and neither word describes a state of mind. The definition of introduction includes a putting in. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1186 (1963). Both words describe an act without specifying the state of mind of the actor. Neither the initiative nor the question informs the voters as to whether a culpable mental state is an element of the proposed crime. [4] Despite the variation in language, a reasonable voter who understands that the initiative contains no express statement on this point will not be misled by a ballot question that reflects the same omission.