Opinion of the Justices
162 A.3d 188
| Me. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2016 Maine voters approved a citizen-initiated statute (L.D. 1557) establishing ranked‑choice voting (RCV) for federal and major state offices effective for elections held on/after Jan. 1, 2018.
- RCV, as enacted, requires centralized, multi‑round tabulation by the Secretary of State, eliminating recognition of a candidate who holds the initial plurality if subsequent rounds change the outcome.
- The Maine Senate asked the Justices for an advisory opinion under Me. Const. art. VI, § 3 about whether RCV conflicts with constitutional provisions requiring winners be determined “by a plurality” and with municipal counting and gubernatorial tie procedures.
- The Justices received briefs, heard argument, and concluded the question presented a “solemn occasion” warranting an advisory opinion.
- The Court’s central legal conclusion: RCV’s multi‑round tabulation conflicts with the Maine Constitution’s plurality clauses for Representative, Senator, and Governor elections; because of that answer, two subsidiary questions about central counting and tie‑by‑lot were not answered as solemn occasions were not presented for them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCV’s sequential, centralized multi‑round tabulation conflicts with the Maine Constitution’s requirement that winners be chosen “by a plurality” | Senate: RCV prevents recognition of the candidate who first achieves a plurality at the municipal count and therefore conflicts with the Constitution’s plurality requirement | Proponents/Secretary of State: RCV is a permissible method to identify the candidate with the most support and can be harmonized with the Constitution; modern tabulation does not alter the constitutional outcome | Held: Yes. RCV conflicts with the Constitution because it does not allow the candidate who first obtains a plurality to be declared the winner when more than two candidates run. |
| Whether the Act’s requirement that the Secretary of State centrally tabulate ballots in multiple rounds conflicts with constitutional provisions assigning sorting/counting/declaring duties to municipal officials | Senate: Centralized multi‑round tabulation supplants municipal counting duties required by the Constitution | Proponents: Central counting is a necessary implementation detail of RCV and permissible under statutory authority | Not answered on the merits: Court declined to address as a separate solemn‑occasion question given the dispositive plurality holding. |
| Whether deciding a gubernatorial tie by lot (per the Act) conflicts with the Constitution’s provision vesting tie resolution in the Legislature | Senate: The Act’s tie‑by‑lot provision conflicts with Article V’s legislative tie‑breaking role | Proponents: Lot is an acceptable, predefined tie‑breaking mechanism consistent with legislative power to set election rules | Not answered on the merits: Court declined to address as a separate solemn‑occasion question given the dispositive plurality holding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (establishes supremacy of the Constitution over conflicting statutes)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (reaffirming representative democracy principles about voters choosing their representatives)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (recognizes practical necessity of substantial regulation to administer fair elections)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (emphasizes public confidence and integrity in electoral processes)
- Opinion of the Justices, 682 A.2d 661 (Me. 1996) (discusses advisory‑opinion authority and limits under Me. Const. art. VI, § 3)
- Allen v. Quinn, 459 A.2d 1098 (Me. 1983) (discusses effect of citizen‑initiated statutes and their effective date)