Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce v. City of Portland, 2021 ME 34

In July 2020 Portland voters circulated and qualified a direct-initiative ordinance amending the city's minimum wage: phased increases plus an "emergency" multiplier making the wage 1.5× the regular rate during a declared emergency.
Voters approved the initiative at the November 3, 2020 municipal election; official results were released November 6, 2020.
The City announced it would not enforce the emergency provision until January 1, 2022.
On December 1, 2020 the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce and local businesses sued, challenging the initiative as beyond "municipal affairs" under the Maine Constitution and the Portland City Code; two Whole Foods employees intervened and sought a declaration that the emergency rate was effective in December 2020.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the City, holding the emergency provision valid and effective January 1, 2022; the Chamber appealed and the intervenors cross-appealed the effective-date ruling.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court: the emergency multiplier is a valid municipal initiative and its effective date is January 1, 2022.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity under Maine Constitution and Portland City Code (scope of "municipal affairs")	Chamber: initiative exceeds municipal affairs; home rule does not expand voters' initiative power	City: home rule and state municipal statute (§3001) allow municipalities (and thus voter initiatives) to legislate local minimum wages and related emergency provisions	Court: Valid — home rule and §3001 expand municipal legislative authority coextensive with direct initiative; the emergency multiplier is a municipal matter
Effective date of the emergency provision	Intervenors: ordinance effective upon certification/within 30 days after official results (Dec 2020); ballot context supports immediate effect	City & Chamber: plain ordinance language ties rates to dates in §33.7(b), the first of which is Jan 1, 2022	Court: Held plain, unambiguous text cross-referencing subsection (b) fixes the effective date at Jan 1, 2022; §9-42 inapplicable

Avangrid Networks, Inc. v. Sec'y of State, [citation="237 A.3d 882"] (2020) (direct-initiative power should be liberally construed to facilitate participatory democracy)
League of Women Voters v. Sec'y of State, [citation="683 A.2d 769"] (1996) (citizen initiatives carry a heavy presumption of constitutionality)
Burkett v. Youngs, [citation="199 A. 619"] (1938) (municipal action required by state law is not a local affair subject to local referendum)
Albert v. Town of Fairfield, [citation="597 A.2d 1353"] (1991) (municipal referendum valid where statutory grant left acceptance of ways to municipal discretion)
Farris v. Goss, [citation="60 A.2d 908"] (1948) (historical context on the adoption of the initiative power)
Sch. Comm. of Town of York v. Town of York, [citation="626 A.2d 935"] (1993) (test for whether a matter is fundamentally local or statewide)
Fitanides v. City of Saco, [citation="113 A.3d 1088"] (2015) (ordinance interpretation: first determine whether text is plain and unambiguous)
Jade Realty Corp. v. Town of Eliot, [citation="946 A.2d 408"] (2008) (when meaning is clear on its face, courts need not look beyond the text)
Wawenock, LLC v. Dep't of Transp., [citation="187 A.3d 609"] (2018) (do not interpret ordinance text to produce illogical or absurd results)