Opinion of the Justices

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Opinion of the Justices

461 A.2d 701

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJune 6, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 461 A.2d 701 (Opinion of the Justices) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Opinion of the Justices, 461 A.2d 701 (Me. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

HOUSE ORDER PROPOUNDING QUESTIONS OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

State of Maine

In House May 26, 1983.

Whereas, it appears to the House of Representatives of the 111th Legislature that the following are important questions of law and that the occasion is a solemn one; and

Whereas, the Constitution of Maine, Article I, Section 2, provides that all power is inherent in the people of Maine; and

Whereas, the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part First, Section 1, reserves to the people of Maine the power to propose and enact laws and to reject at the polls any resolve, resolution or bill enacted by the Legislature; and

Whereas, the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18, provides for public initiative of referenda on issues of concern to the citizens of Maine; and

Whereas, the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 17, provides for a people’s veto of legislative enactments by use of the referendum process; and

Whereas, the Constitution of Maine, Article IX, Section 14, requires the submission of certain bond issues proposed by the Legislature to the citizens of Maine for approval; and

Whereas, the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part First, permits legislative use of the referendum process on issues the Legislature desires to submit to the citizens of Maine; and

Whereas, these constitutional procedures are integral to the form of democracy the citizens of Maine have chosen for their government; and

Whereas, protection of these procedures from corruption and the appearance of corruption is a paramount responsibility of Maine’s State Government; and

Whereas, in recent years the use of these constitutional procedures has increased, as has the importance of the issues submitted thereby to the citizens of Maine; and

Whereas, the level of spending in referen-da and bond issue elections has increased sharply, with many referenda and bond issue elections occuring amidst great disparities in spending between proponents and opponents to influence the outcome of the elections; and

[702]*702Whereas, a bill, House Paper 11, Legislative Document 7, “AN ACT Relating to Referendum Campaign Reports and Finances,” attached as Exhibit A, has been introduced into the House of Representatives and is now pending before that body; and

Whereas, the constitutionality of House Paper 11, Legislative Document 7, has been questioned and it is important that the Legislature be informed as to the constitutionality of the proposed bill; and

Whereas, it is important that the Legislature be informed as to the answers to the important and serious legal questions hereinafter raised; now, therefore, be it

Ordered, that the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court are hereby respectfully requested to give to the House of Representatives, according to the provisions of the Constitution of Maine on its behalf, their opinion on the following questions, to wit:

Question No. 1: Do the differing limitations in House Paper 11, Legislative Document 7 (Exhibit A) on the contributions of individuals and corporations to political committees participating in a bond issue or referendum election deny equal protection of the laws to individuals in violation of the Constitution of Maine, Article I, Section 6-A, and the Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV?

Question No. 2: In light of the fact that Maine law pertaining to elections, Maine Revised Statutes, Title 21, section 1, et seq., contains no limitation on the amount of money individuals or corporations may spend directly in promoting or opposing referendum or bond issues, in the event that the Legislature found that the initiative referendum, people’s veto, legislative referendum and bond issues referendum processes were being corrupted, were in danger of being corrupted or appear to have been corrupted by great disparities in spending between proponents and opponents of measures submitted to the citizens of Maine for consideration, would enactment of House Paper 11, Legislative Document 7 (Exhibit A) limiting the contributions of individuals and corporations to committees participating in such referendum elections unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech of individuals or corporations in violation of the Constitution of Maine, Article I, Section 4, and the Constitution of the United States, Amendment I?

[703]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI