Maine Senate v. Secretary of State, 183 A.3d 749

Background

In 2016 Maine voters passed the Ranked-Choice Voting Act (RCVA), which specified that certain primaries (U.S. Senate/House, Governor, state legislature) would be conducted by ranked-choice voting and included primary nominations within that definition.
A preexisting statute, 21-A M.R.S. § 723(1), provided that primary winners are determined by plurality, creating a statutory conflict with the RCVA.
The Legislature in 2017 enacted an Implementation Act delaying RCV until 2021 and prescribing automatic repeal unless a constitutional amendment occurred, but a people’s veto suspended those delaying provisions, effectively reactivating the RCVA for the June 12, 2018 primary.
The Committee for Ranked-Choice Voting sued the Secretary of State to compel implementation of RCV; the Superior Court ordered the Secretary to continue implementing RCV for the June 12, 2018 primary.
The Maine Senate then sued the Secretary seeking declarations and injunctive relief challenging (1) the Secretary’s funding/appropriation authority to implement RCV, (2) authority to handle ballot logistics for RCV, and (3) whether existing statutes prohibit determining winners by RCV (plus justiciability/standing questions). The Superior Court reported seven questions to the Law Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Senate)	Defendant's Argument (Secretary)	Held
Whether statutory conflict (§1(27-C) RCV v. §723(1) plurality) prohibits using RCV in June 12, 2018 primary	§723(1)’s plurality rule controls; RCV cannot be used absent repeal or further legislative action	§1(27-C) (RCVA), effective via people’s veto suspension, controls and governs primaries	Court: §1(27-C) implicitly repealed §723(1) to extent of conflict; RCV is law for June 12, 2018 primary (Question 3)
Whether Secretary may commit/expend appropriated funds to implement RCV absent explicit line-item appropriation	Secretary’s expenditures for RCV exceed or misapply legislative appropriation power; requires explicit appropriation	Secretary has statutory and executive authority to administer elections using already-appropriated funds; internal funding decisions are for political/coordinate branches	Court: Nonjusticiable under separation of powers; courts will not supervise executive budgeting/administration (Question 1)
Whether Secretary has authority to arrange retrieval/transport of ballots for RCV without additional legislative action	Logistics (securing, transporting ballots for centralized RCV tabulation) exceed Secretary’s authority absent specific statute	Secretary’s election-administration authority covers necessary logistics; or, even if disputed, courts should not intervene	Court: Nonjusticiable; logistics are executive/administrative matters not for judicial resolution (Question 2)
Standing / justiciability / ripeness of Senate’s broader claims	Senate asserted institutional interest and sought adjudication on multiple counts	Secretary and others argued lack of standing/that claims raise political questions or are moot	Court assumed, without deciding, Senate may have standing for Question 3 but held Questions 1 and 2 nonjusticiable and other procedural questions moot

Key Cases Cited

Opinion of the Justices, 162 A.3d 188 (Me. 2017) (advisory that RCV conflicts with constitutional plurality provisions)
Knight v. Aroostook River R.R. Co., 67 Me. 291 (Me. 1877) (newer statute displaces prior conflicting enactments)
Lewiston Firefighters Assoc. v. City of Lewiston, 354 A.2d 154 (Me. 1976) (implicit repeal and interpretation when statutes conflict)
Blair v. State Tax Assessor, 485 A.2d 957 (Me. 1984) (repeal by implication principles)
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (U.S. 1997) (limits on judicial intervention in disputes among coordinate branches)
Wright v. Dep’t of Def. & Veterans Servs., 623 A.2d 1283 (Me. 1993) (separation-of-powers and judicial restraint in administrative/legislative-executive disputes)
Ingraham v. Univ. of Me. at Orono, 441 A.2d 691 (Me. 1982) (standards for injunctive relief)