Under Maine's 1986-amended reapportionment provisions, how many days does the Legislature have to act on the Apportionment Commission's plan: 10 days (130 minus 120) or 30 days?

Plain-English summary

Speaker John Martin asked the AG about a drafting puzzle in Maine's reapportionment provisions. The Apportionment Commission had submitted its decennial redistricting plan on April 1, 1993. How many days did the Legislature have to act?

Maine's reapportionment provisions live in two parallel sections (one for the House at Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 3 and one for the Senate at art. IV, pt. 2, § 1). Both originally said:

• The Apportionment Commission (created by Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1-A) must submit its plan no later than 90 calendar days after the Legislature convenes in the year of apportionment.
• The Legislature has 30 calendar days after the submission to enact the plan or its own substitute.
• If the Legislature has not made the reapportionment within 130 days after convening, the Supreme Judicial Court does it.

The three numbers fit perfectly: 90 + 30 = 120, with 10 days of slack before the 130-day backstop. But Me. Const. amend. CLV (effective November 25, 1986) extended the Commission's deadline from 90 to 120 days, without touching the 30-day or 130-day provisions. If the Commission used the full 120 days, a literal reading of the 130-day backstop would leave the Legislature only 10 days.

The AG concluded the literal reading was wrong. The 1986 amendments touched only the Commission's submission window. They left the 30-day legislative-action window untouched. The 130-day backstop is in a separate paragraph that the 1986 amendments did not modify. The drafting choice (amending one paragraph and not the other) makes it implausible that the Legislature meant to gut its own 30-day window through a side effect on the 130-day backstop.

The practical result: the Legislature has 30 calendar days after April 1, 1993 (so until May 1, 1993) to enact a plan. Only then does the Supreme Judicial Court backstop activate.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Maine's apportionment provisions have been further amended since 1993; verify current law before relying on the timing rule.

Common questions

What does the Apportionment Commission do?

The Apportionment Commission is a body created by Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1-A. It is composed of members appointed by the Legislature, with party leaders selecting most members and a tie-breaking member chosen separately. Its job is to draft a redistricting plan for the Maine House and Senate after each decennial census.

Why did the 1986 amendment extend the Commission's window?

To give the Commission more time to work. 90 days proved tight given the data demands and political work involved.

Why didn't the 1986 amendment also extend the 130-day backstop?

The opinion doesn't speculate. The simplest explanation is that the drafters extended the Commission's window without re-examining how it would interact with the rest of the apportionment timeline.

Could a Court read the 130-day provision literally and limit the Legislature to less than 30 days?

Theoretically. The AG's reading rests on legislative-intent grounds: amending one paragraph without touching another should not produce significant unintended changes to the second. A court might rule differently if a real dispute arose, but the AG's reading would likely be persuasive given the obvious drafting context.

What if the Legislature is in special session or doesn't have 30 active days?

The AG opinion measures "30 calendar days," not 30 legislative days. The Legislature has the calendar period whether or not it is actively in session.

Background and statutory framework

Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 3 (House reapportionment, decennial timing): Original language required the Apportionment Commission to submit a plan no later than 90 calendar days after the Legislature convened in the year of apportionment, with the Legislature having 30 calendar days to act and a 130-day Supreme Judicial Court backstop.

Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 1 (Senate, parallel provision).

Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1-A (creates the Apportionment Commission).

Me. Const. amend. CLV (effective November 25, 1986): Extended the Commission's window from 90 to 120 days, without amending the 30-day or 130-day provisions.

Citations

• Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 3 (House reapportionment timing)
• Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 1 (Senate reapportionment timing)
• Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1-A (Apportionment Commission)
• Me. Const. amend. CLV (effective November 25, 1986) (extending Commission's window to 120 days)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1993/ag_19930406.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

93-4

MICHAEL E. CARPENTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE HOUSE STATION 6
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333

April 6, 1993

Honorable John L. Martin, Speaker
Maine House of Representatives
State House Station #2
Augusta, ME 04333

Dear Speaker Martin:

I am writing in response to your inquiry of earlier this week concerning the number of days which the Legislature has under the Maine Constitution to act upon the plan, submitted on April 1, 1993, by the Reapportionment Commission for the decennial reapportionment of the Maine Legislature. For the reasons which follow, it is the Opinion of this Department that the Legislature has 30 calendar days after the submission of the plan either to enact the plan, or to enact a plan of its own.

The problem which your question presents was generated by identical 1986 amendments to Article IV, Part First, Section 3 (House of Representatives) and Article IV, Part Second, Section 1 (Senate) of the Maine Constitution. Prior to that time, the two sections in question provided that the Reapportionment Commission, established by Article IV, Part Third, Section 1-A of the Constitution, shall submit its plan for the reapportionment of the House of Representatives and the Senate each ten years no later than 90 calendar days after the convening of the Legislature in the year of apportionment. The Legislature was then directed either to enact the plan of the Commission or a plan of its own within 30 calendar days after the submission of the Commission's plan. The sections then provided that if the Legislature fails to make a reapportionment within 130 days after convening, the Supreme Judicial Court shall make the apportionment. In 1986, however, the time within which the Reapportionment Commission was required to submit its plan was extended to 120 days. Me. Const. amend. CLV (effective November 25, 1986). Thus, if the Commission took the full 120 days, under one reading of the amended provision, the Legislature would have only 10 days (130 less 120) to make the reapportionment, notwithstanding the fact that another provision of the sections specifies that the Legislature has 30 days to make the reapportionment.

In the Opinion of this Department, however, such a reading would not be consistent with the intention of the Legislature in making the 1986 amendments. Those amendments related only to the first paragraph of the two sections, which paragraphs contain the time limits for the Reapportionment Commission to submit the plan and the 30-day provision for the Legislature to either enact the plan or one of its own. The provision containing the 130-day limit is in a succeeding paragraph to the two sections, and was untouched by the 1986 amendments. The question thus is whether the Legislature, by amending only the period of time relating to the Reapportionment Commission, intended to reduce the time within which the Legislature must act, should the Reapportionment Commission use up the full amount of time allocated to it. In the view of this Department, since the Legislature did not alter the 30-day provision in the paragraph which it did amend, it could not be found to have eviscerated that provision through the operation of a paragraph which it did not amend.

I hope the foregoing answers your question. Please feel free to reinquire if further clarification is necessary.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL E. CARPENTER
Attorney General

MEC:sw

cc: Honorable Dennis L. Dutremble
President, Maine Senate