Court Opinion

ID: 9927450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-27 16:10:45.470991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:41.940305
License: Public Domain

2023 ME 34

                       OPINION OF THE JUSTICES
                   OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

              GIVEN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3
                 OF ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION

                         Docket No. OJ-23-1

             QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY THE MAINE SENATE
              AND THE MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        IN A COMMUNICATION

                        DATED MAY 11, 2023

                       ANSWERED JUNE 9, 2023
              QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY THE MAINE SENATE
               AND THE MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                IN A COMMUNICATION DATED MAY 11, 2023

                                 STATE OF MAINE

                                                                In Senate 5/4/2023

      WHEREAS, the Constitution of Maine, Article VI, Section 3 provides for
the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court to render their opinion on important
questions of law and upon solemn occasions; and

     WHEREAS, it appears to the 131st Legislature that the following are
important questions of law and that this is a solemn occasion; and

        WHEREAS, the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18
provides the ability of electors to initiate and propose to the Legislature any
bill, resolve or resolution and further provides the procedures to be followed
by the initiators, including filing the petition for a direct initiative of legislation,
addressed to the Legislature, with the Secretary of State within a specified
number of days after the convening of a regular session; and

      WHEREAS, the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18,
Subsection 2 provides that the Legislature must be given the opportunity to act
on the measure: “The measure thus proposed, unless enacted without change by
the Legislature at the session at which it is presented, shall be submitted to the
electors together with any . . . recommendation of the Legislature” [emphasis
added]; and further that “[i]f the measure initiated is enacted by the Legislature
without change, it shall not go to a referendum vote” [emphasis added]; and

     WHEREAS, the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Sections 1
and 4 grant the Legislature the exclusive authority to set its own rules of
procedure, including such rules establishing the manner in which initiated bills
may be presented to the Legislature for consideration; and
2

      WHEREAS, between the convening of the 131st Legislature and
March 22, 2023, the Secretary of State certified as valid 4 measures proposed
by electors; and

      WHEREAS, on February 16, 2023, the Secretary of State transmitted 2 of
the measures to the Legislature to be produced by the Office of the Revisor of
Statutes as legislative documents for consideration by the Legislature; and

       WHEREAS, on March 22, 2023, the Secretary of State transmitted the
other 2 measures to the Legislature to be produced by the Office of the Revisor
of Statutes as legislative documents for consideration by the Legislature; and

       WHEREAS, before any measure thus transmitted was produced as a
legislative document and presented to the Legislature, the First Regular Session
of the 131st Legislature adjourned on March 30, 2023; and

      WHEREAS, prior to its adjournment, the First Regular Session of the
131st Legislature passed a joint order carrying over to a subsequent session of
the 131st Legislature “. . . all matters not finally disposed of at the time of
adjournment . . . in the possession of the Legislature, including working papers
and drafts in the possession of nonpartisan staff offices”; and

     WHEREAS, among the working papers and drafts in the possession of the
nonpartisan staff office the Office of the Revisor of Statutes at the time of
adjournment were the 4 measures not yet prepared as legislative documents;
and

     WHEREAS, the 131st Legislature convened in special session on April 5,
2023; and

      WHEREAS, on April 10, 2023, 2 of the measures, as prepared by the
Office of the Revisor of Statutes, were transmitted to the Clerk of the House,
given Legislative Document numbers, L.D. 1610 and L.D. 1611, and ordered
printed by the Clerk of the House with the following statement “Transmitted to
the Clerk of the 131st Maine Legislature by the Secretary of State on April 10,
2023 and ordered printed.”; and
                                                                                3

      WHEREAS, these 2 measures were placed on the Advance Journal and
Calendar of the House of Representatives and presented to the Legislature on
April 11, 2023; and

      WHEREAS, those 2 measures had not previously been printed and
presented to the Legislature in either the First Regular Session or the First
Special Session of the 131st Legislature; and

      WHEREAS, Rule 401 of the Joint Rules of the 131st Legislature provides
that a bill or resolve is not considered to be “in the possession of the
Legislature” until “after it is printed”; and

      WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, the Secretary of State issued 4
proclamations of the Governor proclaiming that an election be held for all 4
measures, calling into question the ability of the Legislature to thereafter
consider these measures as provided by the Constitution of Maine, Article IV,
Part Third, Section 18, Subsection 2; and

      WHEREAS, there are now questions before the Legislature regarding the
constitutionality of those proclamations and the efficacy of any actions the
Legislature may take to enact the measures; and

      WHEREAS, as it considers action on the initiated bills, it is important that
the Legislature be informed as to the legal questions raised in this order; now,
therefore, be it

      ORDERED, the House concurring, that, in accordance with the provisions
of the Constitution of Maine, the Senate and the House of Representatives
respectfully request the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court to give their
opinion to the Senate and the House of Representatives on the following
questions of law:

       Question 1. Is the mere transmittal of a measure by the Secretary of State
sufficient to constitute “present[ation] to the Legislature” within the meaning
of the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, Subsection 2,
notwithstanding that at the time it was transmitted the measure did not exist
as a legislative document, had not been printed pursuant to Joint Rule 401, had
not appeared on any legislative calendar, and that neither the full House nor full
4

Senate were made aware that the measure was in possession of the Legislature
until approximately 53 days after transmittal?

      Question 2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, did the
Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, Subsection 2 preclude
the 131st Legislature, as assembled in the First Regular Session, from carrying
the measure over for consideration in the First Special Session?

      Question 3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, does the
Legislature’s Constitutional power enumerated in Article IV, Part Third, Section
1 to “make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense
and benefit of the people of this State” include the power to consider and enact
the measure into law during the First Special Session?

      Question 4. If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative and a
measure is thus enacted by the First Special Session of the Legislature without
change, must the identical measure identified in a Proclamation executed by
the Governor on April 7, 2023 “not go to a referendum vote” pursuant to the
Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, Subsection 2?

      Question 5. If the answer to Question 4 is in the negative, is a bill thus
enacted by the First Special Session of the Legislature a competing measure to
an identical measure placed on the ballot by proclamation of the Governor on
April 7, 2023, as described in the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third,
Section 18, Subsection 2?

SPONSORED BY:           /s/
      (President JACKSON, T.)
      COUNTY: Aroostook
                                                                                               5

                               OPINION OF THE JUSTICES

To the Honorable Maine Senate and Maine House of Representatives:

       [¶1] The questions propounded by the Maine Senate and the

Maine House of Representatives relate to four citizen-initiated measures that

were transmitted to the Legislature by the Secretary of State on February 16

and March 22, 2023, but were not prepared as legislative documents for the

Legislature’s consideration until after the First Regular Session of the 131st

Legislature adjourned on March 30, 2023.

       [¶2]    The Senate and House of Representatives propounded these

questions to us as individual Justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court

pursuant to article VI, section 3 of the Maine Constitution, which states, “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.” Me. Const. art. VI, § 3; see

Opinion of the Justices, 2017 ME 100, ¶ 1, 162 A.3d 188.

       [¶3] It is our honor to provide the following response. All participating

Justices join in this opinion.1

  1  Justices Connors and Lawrence decline to answer because their disqualification or recusal is
required by the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct.
6

                                       I. BACKGROUND

       [¶4] On February 16, 2023, the Secretary of State transmitted two

citizen-initiated measures to the Legislature to be produced by the Office of the

Revisor of Statutes as legislative documents for consideration by the 131st

Legislature. The Secretary of State transmitted two more such measures to the

Legislature on March 22, 2023.2

       [¶5]     The 131st Legislature adjourned its First Regular Session on

March 30, 2023, before any of the transmitted measures were produced as

legislative documents for the Legislature’s consideration.                              Before its

adjournment, the Legislature passed a joint order carrying over to a subsequent

session of the 131st Legislature “all matters not finally disposed of at the time

of adjournment of the First Regular Session of the 131st Legislature in the

possession of the Legislature, including working papers and drafts in the

possession of nonpartisan staff offices.” S.P. 594 (131st Legis. 2023). The four

measures at issue here were among the matters not finally disposed of by the

time of adjournment.

   2 The Legislature indicates that “the Secretary of State transmitted . . . the measures to the

Legislature to be produced by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes as legislative documents for
consideration by the Legislature,” but does not describe in detail how, or to which legislative officer
or officers, the Secretary of State transmitted the measures.
                                                                                7

      [¶6] On March 31, 2023, the Governor called the Legislature into special

session due to “an extraordinary occasion arising out of the need to resolve

many legislative matters pending at the time of the adjournment of the First

Regular Session of the 131st Legislature of the State of Maine.” Proclamation of

Governor Janet T. Mills Convening the Members of the 131st Legislature in

Special Session (Mar. 31, 2023); see Me. Const. art. V, pt. 1, § 13 (“The Governor

may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the Legislature . . . .”). The 131st

Legislature convened its First Special Session on April 5, 2023. On April 7, 2023,

the Governor, concluding that the measures were not “enacted without change

by the Legislature at the session at which [they were] presented,” Me. Const.

art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2), proclaimed that the measures be referred to the people at

the November 2023 election, see id. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(3).

      [¶7] The Office of the Revisor of Statutes prepared two of the initiated

measures as legislative documents, which it transmitted to the Clerk of the

House on April 10, 2023. The documents were given legislative document

numbers, L.D. 1610 and L.D. 1611, and ordered printed by the Clerk of the

House with the following statement: “Transmitted to the Clerk of the 131st

Maine Legislature by the Secretary of State on April 10, 2023 and ordered
8

printed.” Both measures were included on the Advance Journal and Calendar

of the House of Representatives on April 11, 2023.

      [¶8] The Governor’s proclamation that an election be held for each of the

four measures has called into question whether the Constitution of Maine

provides the Legislature with the authority to consider the measures in the

First Special Session. See Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2). We invited briefs from

the Maine Legislature, Governor Mills, the Secretary of State, the

Attorney General, and any other interested party or entity. We received briefs

from the Maine Legislature, the Attorney General (joined by the Secretary of

State and, in relevant part, by Governor Mills); Protect Maine Elections, Inc.; and

Maine Affordable Energy Ballot Question Committee. We conducted an oral

argument on the questions on May 31, 2023.

                                 II. DISCUSSION

A.    Authority to Issue an Advisory Opinion

      [¶9] The Maine Constitution places limitations on the authority of the

Justices to provide advisory opinions, which represent the advice of the

participating individual Justices. Opinion of the Justices, 2017 ME 100, ¶ 9, 162

A.3d 188; see Me. Const. art. VI, § 3. Such opinions are not binding in future

cases and have no conclusive effect. Opinion of the Justices, 2017 ME 100, ¶ 9,
                                                                                  9

162 A.3d 188. They may, however, provide necessary guidance and analysis for

decision-making by the other branches of government. Id.             “The tension

between the constitutionally required separation of powers and the

constitutionally provided authority of the Justices of the Maine Supreme

Judicial Court to provide official but nonbinding advice to the other Branches is

addressed through the balance articulated in the requirements (1) setting out

who may seek the Justices’ advice, (2) inquiring whether that advice is sought

as to important questions of law, and (3) providing that a solemn occasion must

exist for the Justices’ provision of such advice.” Id. ¶ 17; see Me. Const. art. VI,

§ 3. The Justices must strictly observe these limitations on their authority.

Opinion of the Justices, 2017 ME 100, ¶ 17, 162 A.3d 188.

      [¶10] Here, the Senate and the House of Representatives are authorized

to seek the Justices’ advice about their own authority and duties. See Me. Const.

art. VI, § 3; Opinion of the Justices, 2017 ME 100, ¶¶ 19, 24, 162 A.3d 188. The

questions are not inconsequential, “esoteric, or purely academic” but present

important questions of law concerning the Legislature’s authority to act.

Opinion of the Justices, 2017 ME 100, ¶ 20, 162 A.3d 188. Specifically, the

Legislature seeks to determine the scope of its authority to legislate by asking

whether the citizen-initiated measures were “presented” to it during the First
10

Regular Session and, if so, whether the Maine Constitution authorizes it to act

on those measures in its First Special Session. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2).

These are the types of “important question[s]” that Justices have answered in

the past. See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 2015 ME 107, ¶¶ 18-27, 123 A.3d 494

(considering whether the Legislature effectively extended a legislative

session); Opinion of the Justices, 275 A.2d 800, 803-05 (Me. 1971) (considering

whether the Maine Constitution authorized the Legislature, upon gubernatorial

inaction, to order a special election on citizen-initiated legislation).

        [¶11] There must also be a “solemn occasion[].” Me. Const. art. VI, § 3.

“[A] solemn occasion is one that arises when questions are of a serious and

immediate nature, and the situation presents an unusual exigency.” Opinion of

the Justices, 2017 ME 100, ¶ 22, 162 A.3d 188 (quotation marks omitted). “The

question presented must be one of live gravity, that is, one of instant, not past

nor future, concern.” Id. ¶ 23 (quotation marks omitted). The entity asking the

question must be seeking advice to guide its own actions relating to matters of

public concern that are not tentative, hypothetical, or remote. Id. ¶¶ 24-26,

28-29. If a question is overly complex because of intersecting legal and factual

variables, the Justices may determine that they cannot answer the question. Id.

¶ 27.
                                                                                11

      [¶12] Here, the Legislature has a limited time in which to act before the

November 2023 election if it is authorized to consider the proposed measures.

Thus, we conclude that the Senate and House of Representatives have asked

questions about their authority that are of live gravity, are of a “serious and

immediate nature,” and present “an unusual exigency.” Id. ¶¶ 22-23. They are

questions in which the relevant facts are known and we can offer a meaningful

opinion.    Id. ¶¶ 26-27.    We conclude that the Senate and the House of

Representatives have presented important questions of law upon a solemn

occasion, and we proceed to answer all questions to which a response is

required.

B.    Consideration of the Questions

      [¶13]    In    answering   the   questions,   we    are   guided    by    the

Maine Constitution, which provides as follows with respect to the direct

initiative of legislation:

      Section 18. Direct initiative of legislation.

             1. Petition procedure. The electors may propose to the
      Legislature for its consideration any bill . . . by written petition
      addressed to the Legislature or to either branch thereof and filed
      in the office of the Secretary of State by the hour of 5:00 p.m., on or
      before the 50th day after the date of convening of the Legislature
      in first regular session or on or before the 25th day after the date
      of convening of the Legislature in second regular session, except
      that the written petition may not be filed in the office of the
12

     Secretary of State later than 18 months after the date the petition
     form was furnished or approved by the Secretary of State. . . .

             2. Referral to electors unless enacted by the Legislature
     without change; number of signatures necessary on direct
     initiative petitions; dating signatures on petitions; competing
     measures. For any measure thus proposed by electors, the
     number of signatures shall not be less than 10% of the total vote
     for Governor cast in the last gubernatorial election preceding the
     filing of such petition. A signature is not valid if it is dated more
     than one year prior to the date that the petition was filed in the
     office of the Secretary of State. The measure thus proposed, unless
     enacted without change by the Legislature at the session at which
     it is presented, shall be submitted to the electors together with any
     amended form, substitute, or recommendation of the Legislature,
     and in such manner that the people can choose between the
     competing measures or reject both. When there are competing
     bills and neither receives a majority of the votes given for or against
     both, the one receiving the most votes shall at the next statewide
     election to be held not less than 60 days after the first vote thereon
     be submitted by itself if it receives more than 1/3 of the votes given
     for and against both. If the measure initiated is enacted by the
     Legislature without change, it shall not go to a referendum vote
     unless in pursuance of a demand made in accordance with the
     preceding section. The Legislature may order a special election on
     any measure that is subject to a vote of the people.

           3. Timing of elections; proclamation by Governor. The
     Governor shall, by proclamation, order any measure proposed to
     the Legislature as herein provided, and not enacted by the
     Legislature without change, referred to the people at an election to
     be held in November of the year in which the petition is filed. If the
     Governor fails to order a measure proposed to the Legislature and
     not enacted without change to be submitted to the people at such
     an election by proclamation within 10 days after the recess of the
     Legislature to which the measure was proposed, the Secretary of
     State shall, by proclamation, order such measure to be submitted
                                                                            13

      to the people at an election as requested, and such order shall be
      sufficient to enable the people to vote.

Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18. In construing the Maine Constitution, we may

conduct an examination of “text; purpose; history; common law, statutes, and

rules; economic and sociological considerations; and precedent.” Winchester v.

State, 2023 ME 23, ¶ 14, 291 A.3d 707. The constitutional provisions that

govern the direct initiative of legislation “must be liberally construed to

facilitate, rather than to handicap, the people’s exercise of their sovereign

power to legislate.” McGee v. Sec’y of State, 2006 ME 50, ¶ 25, 896 A.2d 933

(quotation marks omitted).

      1.    Question 1—Presentation of an Initiated Measure to the
            Legislature

             Question 1. Is the mere transmittal of a measure by the
      Secretary of State sufficient to constitute “present[ation] to the
      Legislature” within the meaning of the Constitution of Maine,
      Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, Subsection 2, notwithstanding
      that at the time it was transmitted the measure did not exist as a
      legislative document, had not been printed pursuant to Joint Rule
      401, had not appeared on any legislative calendar, and that neither
      the full House nor full Senate were made aware that the measure
      was in possession of the Legislature until approximately 53 days
      after transmittal?

      [¶14] The Maine Constitution provides that a proposed citizen-initiated

measure, “unless enacted without change by the Legislature at the session at

which it is presented, shall be submitted to the electors together with any
14

amended form, substitute, or recommendation of the Legislature, and in such

manner that the people can choose between the competing measures or reject

both.” Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2) (emphasis added). Here, the Secretary of

State “transmitted” the proposed measures to the Legislature during the First

Regular Session, but the Legislature’s staff and the Office of the Revisor of

Statutes did not print—and the Legislature did not consider—the measures

before the adjournment of that session. At issue is whether the measures were

“presented” to the Legislature during the First Regular Session. Id.

      [¶15] The sentence we interpret, read in isolation, does not explicitly

resolve the issue because it does not indicate how or by whom a proposed

measure is “presented” to the Legislature. Cf. Jones v. Sec’y of State, 2020 ME

113, ¶ 11, 238 A.3d 982 (“We will interpret the constitutional or statutory

provision according to its plain meaning if the language is unambiguous.”);

State v. Hoppe, 215 N.W.2d 797, 801 (Minn. 1974) (“[T]he language of a

constitutional provision, when . . . clear, explicit, unambiguous, and free from

obscurity, is the best evidence of the underlying intent.” (quotation marks

omitted)). Thus, we expand the scope of our inquiry to interpret the provision’s

meaning. See Winchester, 2023 ME 23, ¶ 14, 291 A.3d 707.
                                                                                15

      [¶16] Because the Maine Constitution itself authorizes the Legislature to

enact laws to implement the direct initiative process described in the

Constitution, see Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 22; McGee, 2006 ME 50, ¶ 20, 896

A.2d 933, the laws adopted by the Legislature, see 21-A M.R.S. §§ 901-907

(2023), are helpful in understanding the constitutional process.               See

Winchester, 2023 ME 23, ¶ 14, 291 A.3d 707 (authorizing the consideration of

statutes in interpreting the Maine Constitution). Because a statute must be

interpreted in a way that “will satisfy constitutional requirements” if the

interpretation is reasonable, Martin v. MacMahan, 2021 ME 62, ¶ 24, 264 A.3d

1224 (quotation marks omitted), the statutes governing ballot initiatives,

which effectuate constitutional requirements and do not conflict with them, are

important to our constitutional interpretation. We therefore summarize the

direct initiative process laid out by the Maine Constitution and the statutes

adopted to implement that process.

      [¶17] The electors begin the process by “propos[ing]” a bill “to the

Legislature for its consideration . . . by written petition addressed to the

Legislature or to either branch thereof and filed in the office of the Secretary of

State.” Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(1) (emphasis added). Though the

legislation offered in the petition is proposed to the Legislature, see id., the
16

Secretary of State decides whether the legislation qualifies to be “submitted” to

the Legislature, 21-A M.R.S. § 907, by “determin[ing] the validity of the petition

and issu[ing] a written decision stating the reasons for the decision within 30

days from the date of filing,” id. § 905(1); see Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2)

(imposing requirements for a valid petition). If the petition is “determined

valid by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 905, subsection 1 and is

submitted to the Legislature,” the pertinent joint standing committee of the

Legislature must hold a public hearing unless a public hearing is waived by a

two-thirds vote in each house. 21-A M.R.S. § 907 (emphasis added). “The

measure thus proposed, unless enacted without change by the Legislature at the

session at which it is presented, shall be submitted to the electors . . . .” Me.

Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2) (emphasis added); see also id. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1

(establishing the Legislature’s lawmaking authority); id. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(3)

(“The Governor shall, by proclamation, order any measure proposed to the

Legislature as herein provided, and not enacted by the Legislature without

change, referred to the people at an election to be held in November of the year

in which the petition is filed.” (emphasis added)).

      [¶18] Under this unified constitutional and statutory scheme, a petition

is “submitted” to the Legislature on the date of transmission of the petition to
                                                                                17

the Legislature from the Secretary of State. 21-A M.R.S. § 907; see id. § 905(1);

Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2). The transmittal date is also the date of

“presentation” because the electors present a proposal to the Legislature

through filing with the Secretary of State, and the electors’ presentation “to the

Legislature” becomes complete once the Secretary, after validating the petition,

transmits the proposed measure to the Legislature. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3,

§ 18(1), (2); see Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1 (authorizing the Legislature to

consider, in its second regular session, legislation “presented to the Legislature

by written petition of the electors under the provisions of Article IV, Part Third,

Section 18” (emphasis added)); Avangrid Networks, Inc. v. Sec’y of State, 2020

ME 109, ¶ 6, 237 A.3d 882 (stating that the Secretary of State “presented” an

initiative to the Legislature in a communication).

      [¶19] The history of the constitutional provision at issue supports this

interpretation. See Winchester, 2023 ME 23, ¶ 14, 291 A.3d 707 (authorizing

the consideration of constitutional history in interpreting the Maine

Constitution). The constitutional amendment that initially created the direct

initiative process in 1907 provided that citizens could submit proposed

legislation

      by written petition addressed to the legislature or to either branch
      thereof and filed in the office of the secretary of state or presented
18

         to either branch of the legislature at least thirty days before the
         close of its session. Any measure thus proposed by not less than
         twelve thousand electors, unless enacted without change by the
         legislature at the session at which it is presented, shall be
         submitted to the electors together with any amended form,
         substitute, or recommendation of the legislature, and in such
         manner that the people can choose between the competing
         measures or reject both.

Resolves 1907, ch. 121 (effective Jan. 6, 1909) (emphasis added).

         [¶20] The emphasized language remained in place until the adoption of

a definitive requirement that every petition must be filed with the Secretary of

State. Const. Res. 1975, ch. 2 (effective Nov. 24, 1975). The provision then read

as follows: “The electors may propose to the Legislature for its consideration

any bill, resolve or resolution, including bills to amend or repeal emergency

legislation but not an amendment of the State Constitution, by written petition

addressed to the Legislature or to either branch thereof and filed in the office of

the Secretary of State by the hour of five o’clock, p.m., on the fiftieth day after

the date of convening of the Legislature in regular session.” Id. (emphasis

added). Section 18 continued to provide for a measure’s submission to the

electors “unless enacted without change by the Legislature at the session at

which it is presented.”3 Id.

     Subsequent amendments did not affect the language regarding the session at which a measure
     3

is “presented.” Const. Res. 1981, ch. 1 (effective Nov. 23, 1981); Const. Res. 2005, ch. 2 (effective
Nov. 27, 2006).
                                                                                19

      [¶21]    Because section 18(2) initially included multiple means of

submitting the petition—by filing it in the office of the Secretary of State “or

present[ing it] to either branch of the legislature” within a specified time before

the end of the legislative session, Resolves 1907, ch. 121 (effective Jan. 6,

1909)—the reference to the proposed measure being “presented” must have

initially referred to the petitioners’ presentation of it to the Legislature either

directly by the petitioners or through the Secretary of State. The presentation

now must be through the Secretary of State, and that presentation is complete

upon the Secretary of State’s transmittal to the Legislature.

      [¶22] This interpretation of section 18(2) is also in harmony with

another provision of the Maine Constitution that refers to the direct initiative

process, indicating that “the business of the second regular session of the

Legislature” is limited to certain matters, including “legislation presented to the

Legislature by written petition of the electors under the provisions of Article IV,

Part Third, Section 18.” Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1 (emphasis added); see

Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 1-12 at 38 (3d ed. 2000)

(stating that interpreting constitutional text “requires close attention to

linguistic context—that is, to surrounding language; to how the relevant word

or phrase is used elsewhere in the document”); Avangrid Networks, Inc., 2020
20

ME 109, ¶ 27, 237 A.3d 882 (examining constitutional language in the context

of the Maine Constitution as a whole). Again, the electors4 are referenced as the

entities who “present” a proposed measure to the Legislature, which supports

an interpretation of section 18 to provide for the electors’ presentation of their

proposal to the Legislature through the Secretary of State.5

         [¶23] Finally, because the Maine Constitution contemplates the electors’

presentation of the proposals to the Legislature during a regular session, see

Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(1), section 18(2) should not be interpreted to allow

a delay in the constitutional act of “presentation” when legislative staff does not

promptly prepare the transmitted measures for consideration by the

Legislature. Cf. Joint Rule 210 (131st Me. Legis. 2023) (“All bills and other

instruments, including bills proposed by initiative, must be allocated to the

Maine Revised Statutes as appropriate and corrected for form, legislative style

and grammar by the Revisor of Statutes before printing.”).

         [¶24] We consider the initiated measures to have been “presented” when

the Secretary of State transmitted them to the Legislature. Me. Const. art. IV, pt.

     4 See Me. Const. art. II, § 1 (establishing the scope of the term “electors”).

     5 For this reason, the proclamation of the Governor here was properly made “subsequently to the

recess of the session of the Legislature to which such measure was proposed.” Opinion of the Justices,
275 A.2d 800, 804 (Me. 1971); see Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(3).
                                                                               21

3, § 18(2). Thus, our answer to the first question is yes. We therefore proceed

to the remaining questions.

      2.    Questions 2 through 5—Scope of the Legislature’s Authority to
            Act on the Measures in the First Special Session

            Question 2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative,
      did the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18,
      Subsection 2 preclude the 131st Legislature, as assembled in the
      First Regular Session, from carrying the measure over for
      consideration in the First Special Session?

            Question 3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative,
      does the Legislature’s Constitutional power enumerated in Article
      IV, Part Third, Section 1 to “make and establish all reasonable laws
      and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this
      State” include the power to consider and enact the measure into
      law during the First Special Session?

            Question 4. If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative
      and a measure is thus enacted by the First Special Session of the
      Legislature without change, must the identical measure identified
      in a Proclamation executed by the Governor on April 7, 2023 “not
      go to a referendum vote” pursuant to the Constitution of Maine,
      Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, Subsection 2?

              Question 5. If the answer to Question 4 is in the negative, is
      a bill thus enacted by the First Special Session of the Legislature a
      competing measure to an identical measure placed on the ballot by
      proclamation of the Governor on April 7, 2023, as described in the
      Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, Subsection
      2?

      [¶25] We consider the remaining four questions together because they

are analytically related. Here, the Legislature did not act on the proposed
22

measures during the session in which the measures were presented but rather

adjourned before its staff and the Office of the Revisor of Statutes had produced

and delivered legislative documents for the Legislature’s consideration. The

Legislature passed a joint order, however, to carry all pending matters over to

the next session.

      [¶26]   For purposes of determining the scope of the Legislature’s

authority to act on the initiatives in the First Special Session, we begin by

considering the opinion of the Justices who reasoned, in 1996, that the

Legislature was free to consider competing measures during a special session.

Opinion of the Justices, 680 A.2d 444, 446 (Me. 1996). There, the Justices opined

that the Constitution “does not appear to restrict the Legislature’s ability to

craft a competing measure to the same session” but instead “directs the

Legislature to submit the competing measure to the electors in time for the

people to choose between the competing measures or reject both.” Id. Those

Justices construed the Constitution to enable the Legislature “to enact a

competing measure at a subsequent Special Session within the same biennial

session of that Legislature,” and opined that their construction was “supported

by the broad language vesting all legislative power in the Legislature’s two
                                                                                               23

Houses in Article IV, Part First, § 1, subject only to the people’s reserved

powers.”6 Id.

       [¶27] There is a distinction in the constitutional text between the

Legislature offering a competing measure and the Legislature enacting a

proposed measure without change. Section 18(2) provides, “The measure thus

proposed, unless enacted without change by the Legislature at the session at

which it is presented, shall be submitted to the electors together with any

amended form, substitute, or recommendation of the Legislature, and in such

manner that the people can choose between the competing measures or reject

both.” Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2) (emphasis added). There is no limitation,

however, on when any “amended form, substitute, or recommendation of the

Legislature” may be produced. Id.

       [¶28]     Section 18(2) subsequently provides that “[i]f the measure

initiated is enacted by the Legislature without change, it shall not go to a

referendum vote” except upon the electors’ petition for a people’s veto of

legislation. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2) (emphasis added); see Me. Const.

   6 The Law Court has also held that the Legislature may enact emergency legislation that would
otherwise constitute a competing measure before the election. McCaffrey v. Gartley, 377 A.2d 1367,
1371 (Me. 1977).
24

art. IV, pt. 3, § 17. That provision does not indicate when the enactment by the

Legislature without change must occur. See id. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2).

      [¶29] As mentioned above, we construe the constitutional text as a

unified whole.     See Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 1-12 at 38;

Avangrid Networks, Inc., 2020 ME 109, ¶ 27, 237 A.3d 882. In doing so, we also

consider the implementing statutes pertaining to the direct initiative of

legislation. See Winchester, 2023 ME 23, ¶ 14, 291 A.3d 707; Martin, 2021 ME

62, ¶ 24, 264 A.3d 1224.

      [¶30] The relevant constitutional text provides that a petition must be

filed with the Secretary of State “by the hour of 5:00 p.m., on or before the 50th

day after the date of convening of the Legislature in first regular session,” and

“not . . . later than 18 months after the date the petition form was furnished or

approved by the Secretary of State.” Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(1). After

receiving the filing, the Secretary of State “determine[s] the validity of the

petition and issue[s] a written decision stating the reasons for the decision

within 30 days from the date of filing.” 21-A M.R.S. § 905(1). It is at that point

transmitted and thereby “presented” to the Legislature. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3,

§ 18(2); see also 21-A M.R.S. § 907. After the Secretary of State issues the

decision, however, it may be challenged by a qualified voter. Me. Const. art. IV,
                                                                                                  25

pt. 3, § 22; 21-A M.R.S. § 905(2)-(4). If challenged, the decision is subject to a

constitutionally mandated judicial review process that can take up to “100 days

from the date of filing of [the] written petition in the office of the Secretary of

State.” Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 22; see 21-A M.R.S. § 905(2)-(4).

       [¶31] The Legislature may, under this constitutional and statutory

framework, be presented with a proposed initiative that has not yet been

conclusively determined to be valid. In these circumstances, some delays might

arise in the Legislature’s consideration of a proposed initiative and result in the

measures not being fully considered before the end of a regular session. The

possibility that legislative proceedings on an initiative may be delayed is

especially profound because the Legislature must, by statute, hold a public

hearing on the proposed legislation unless it waives the hearing by a two-thirds

vote. See 21-A M.R.S. § 907. Thus, we opine that a Legislature that does not

enact a measure without change during a regular session can still—during a

special session—enact any of the proposed measures without change.7

       [¶32] If the Legislature enacts a measure without change, the measure

will not be submitted to the electorate absent a petition for a people’s veto. See

   7 If it is an identical measure, it cannot be a competing measure because a competing measure

deals “with the same general subject matter . . . in a manner inconsistent with the initiated measure
so that the two cannot stand together.” Farris ex rel. Dorsky v. Goss, 143 Me. 227, 232, 60 A.2d 908
(1948).
26

Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(2); Tinkle, The Maine Constitution 103 (2d ed.

2013). To hold otherwise would thwart the constitutional power of the

Legislature to adopt an initiative without change. See Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3,

§ 18(2); see also Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1 (“The Legislature, with the

exceptions hereinafter stated, shall have full power to make and establish all

reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this

State, not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.”);

Sawyer v. Gilmore, 109 Me. 169, 180, 83 A. 673 (1912) (“The powers of the

Legislature in matters of legislation, broadly speaking are absolute, except as

restricted and limited by the Constitution.”). More importantly, it would also

thwart the constitutionally conferred opportunity of the electors to “propose to

the Legislature for its consideration any bill, resolve or resolution” through the

direct initiative process. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18(1) (emphasis added); see

McGee, 2006 ME 50, ¶ 25, 896 A.2d 933. This interpretation also accords with

common sense: it would be strange, indeed, if the Legislature could enact a

similar measure to become a competing measure and yet be divested of the

power to enact the very measure the electors proposed.

      [¶33] Thus, we interpret the Maine Constitution to allow the Legislature

to adopt any of the proposed measures without change. See Me. Const. art. IV,
                                                                               27

pt. 3, § 18(2). If the Legislature does adopt a measure, it should be mindful of

the need to do so in a timely fashion to prevent ballots from including questions

that are not properly submitted to the electors for a vote. Cf. Opinion of the

Justices, 680 A.2d at 446 (interpreting section 18(2) to “direct[] the Legislature

to submit the competing measure to the electors in time for the people to

choose between the competing measures or reject both”).

      [¶34] Thus, our response to Question 2 is no, our response to Question 3

is yes, and our answer to Question 4 is yes. We do not answer Question 5.

                               III. CONCLUSION

      [¶35] In the context of the questions presented and for the reasons

stated above, we answer the questions as follows:

             Question 1. Is the mere transmittal of a measure by the
      Secretary of State sufficient to constitute “present[ation] to the
      Legislature” within the meaning of the Constitution of Maine,
      Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, Subsection 2, notwithstanding
      that at the time it was transmitted the measure did not exist as a
      legislative document, had not been printed pursuant to Joint Rule
      401, had not appeared on any legislative calendar, and that neither
      the full House nor full Senate were made aware that the measure
      was in possession of the Legislature until approximately 53 days
      after transmittal?

Answer:     Yes.

            Question 2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative,
      did the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18,
      Subsection 2 preclude the 131st Legislature, as assembled in the
28

     First Regular Session, from carrying the measure over for
     consideration in the First Special Session?

Answer:    No.

           Question 3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative,
     does the Legislature’s Constitutional power enumerated in Article
     IV, Part Third, Section 1 to “make and establish all reasonable laws
     and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this
     State” include the power to consider and enact the measure into
     law during the First Special Session?

Answer:    Yes.

           Question 4. If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative
     and a measure is thus enacted by the First Special Session of the
     Legislature without change, must the identical measure identified
     in a Proclamation executed by the Governor on April 7, 2023 “not
     go to a referendum vote” pursuant to the Constitution of Maine,
     Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, Subsection 2?

Answer:    Yes.

             Question 5. If the answer to Question 4 is in the negative, is
     a bill thus enacted by the First Special Session of the Legislature a
     competing measure to an identical measure placed on the ballot by
     proclamation of the Governor on April 7, 2023, as described in the
     Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, Subsection
     2?

We do not answer this Question.
Dated: June 9, 2023

                             /s/
                      Valerie Stanfill
                      Chief Justice

                           /s/
                      Andrew M. Mead

                           /s/
                      Joseph M. Jabar

                           /s/
                      Andrew M. Horton

                          /s/
                      Wayne R. Douglas

                      Associate Justices
2

Melissa A. Hewey, Esq., David M. Kallin, Esq. (orally), and Oliver Mac Walton,
Esq., Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon, Portland, for the Maine State
Legislature

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Jonathan R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen.
(orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for the Attorney General

Paul E. Suitter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for the
Secretary of State

Gerald D. Reid, Esq., and Timothy J. Feeley, Esq., Office of the Governor, Augusta,
for the Governor

Benjamin Gaines, Esq. (orally), Gaines Law, LLC, Portland, for Protect Maine
Elections, Inc.

Nolan L. Reichl, Esq., Julia B. MacDonald, Esq., and Joshua D. Dunlap, Esq.
(orally), Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, for Maine Affordable Energy Ballot
Question Committee