256 A.3d 260
Me.2021Background
- Thomas B. Saviello submitted a direct-initiative petition (circulated and validated) proposing an Act with multiple, related provisions: (1) require legislative approval retroactive to 2014 for leases/conveyances of public reserved lands for transmission lines and other uses; (2) require legislative approval (retroactive to 2020) for construction of “high-impact” transmission lines, with a two-thirds vote if public lands are used; and (3) ban construction of such lines in the Upper Kennebec Region (retroactive to 2020).
- The petition was presented to the Legislature, which adjourned without enactment; the Governor ordered a referendum for November 2, 2021.
- The Secretary of State drafted a single ballot question after public comment; Caiazzo argued in comments that the initiative should be split into three separate questions.
- Caiazzo sued, claiming the Secretary erred by failing to present three separate questions; the Superior Court (O’Neil, J.) affirmed the Secretary’s decision under Rule 80C.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the Secretary is required to advise petitioners about the suggested format and to draft a clear, concise question but is not statutorily required to split a single circulated initiative into multiple ballot questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secretary of State must prepare separate ballot questions for each issue in a direct initiative | Caiazzo: §906(6)(A) requires separate questions for separate issues; Secretary erred by drafting one question | Secretary: §906(6)(A) only requires advising petitioners of the suggested format; no mandatory duty to split; must draft a clear, concise question under §906(6)(B) | Court: No mandatory duty to split; Secretary must advise petitioners and draft the question clearly; here Secretary did not abuse discretion in using a single question |
| Proper procedural basis and standard for review of the Secretary’s ballot-drafting decision | Caiazzo: review available under 21-A §905 and Rule 80C | Secretary: §905 review applies only to petition validity and to petitioners; Caiazzo (not the applicant) cannot invoke §905 here; ordinary 80C review under 5 M.R.S. §11008 applies | Court: Appeal is an ordinary Rule 80C appeal (not §905 review) because Caiazzo was not a petitioner; court nonetheless expedited consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Sec'y of State, 232 A.3d 202 (Me. 2020) (review standard; deference to Secretary on initiative administration)
- Olson v. Sec'y of State, 689 A.2d 605 (Me. 1997) (prior practice when ballot question circulated with petition)
- Wagner v. Sec'y of State, 663 A.2d 564 (Me. 1995) (review of whether initiative question is materially misleading)
- Me. Green Party v. Sec'y of State, 698 A.2d 516 (Me. 1997) (statutory interpretation in context of initiative scheme)
- Thornton Acad. v. Reg'l Sch. Unit 21, 212 A.3d 340 (Me. 2019) (avoidance of surplusage in statutory construction)