Opinion ID: 2310976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of the phrase Class A crime

Text: [¶ 10] Plaintiffs next argue that the ballot question reference to Class A crime is not understandable to a reasonable voter within the meaning of section 905(2). We are required for the first time to construe the requirement that the description of the subject matter be understandable. In reviewing the decision of the Secretary of State, the 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). [¶ 11] We reject the notion that section 905 requires that the description be understandable to a voter who is reading both the question and the legislation for the first time. It is inevitable that ballot questions will reflect the ambiguities, complexities, and omissions in the legislation they describe. Voters are not to rely on the ballot question alone in order to understand the proposal. The procedure is designed to ensure that voters, who may be reading the question for the first time in the voting booth, will understand the subject matter and the choice presented. It is assumed that the voters have discharged their civic duty to educate themselves about the initiative. For example, the term Class A crime is readily understood by reference to external sources because it is defined by statute [5] and would undoubtedly be discussed in the context of political debate on the initiative. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.