Opinion ID: 2193020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Deference to the Secretary's Interpretation

Text: [¶ 20] The Secretary informed Arsenault that [i]t has been this office's consistent interpretation that in order to be selected as a replacement nominee, a voter must be a member of the political party choosing the replacement candidate, at the time of selection. The Secretary argues that his consistent interpretation of the statutory scheme is entitled to deference. [3] [¶ 21] We defer to the Secretary's interpretation if the statutes or statutory scheme are ambiguous and if his interpretation is reasonable. Melanson, 2004 ME 127, ¶ 8, 861 A.2d at 644. However, we are not persuaded that sections 144 or 363 are ambiguous either standing alone or in the context of the statutory scheme governing the nomination of replacement candidates. [¶ 22] The Secretary argues that his interpretation regarding the qualifications of replacement candidates makes the replacement candidate process consistent with the primary election process. However, the Legislature was obviously aware of the inconsistency between the requirements for primary election candidates and replacement candidates, and wrote language to deal with it by stating that the statutes regarding primary election candidates are not applicable to replacement candidates. See 21-A M.R.S. § 331(2)(B). The Legislature made clear that its intention was not to import the requirements for primary election candidates to the replacement candidates. [¶ 23] There is no ambiguity in the statutory scheme regarding the nomination of a replacement candidate that requires a clarifying interpretation from the Secretary. In fact, the Secretary is doing more than interpreting the statutory scheme; his office has fashioned a limitation that does not exist in the statutes. There is no indication that the Legislature intended that the Secretary create additional qualifications or limitations for the selection of replacement candidates. Given the fundamental importance of the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process, and given the painstaking detail of the election statutes, if the Legislature had intended to delegate to the Secretary the authority to add restrictions to this process, it would have done so explicitly. [¶ 24] In summary, the statutory scheme regarding replacement candidates is not ambiguous, and we do not defer to the Secretary's interpretation. We conclude that the Maine statutes allow the Republican Committee to nominate Arsenault even though he was not an enrolled member of the Republican Party at the time of the nomination. The entry is: Case remanded to the Superior Court for the entry of judgment vacating the decision of the Secretary of State.