When Maine's Legislature gets an initiated bill, can it call a special election sooner than the next general election, and can a two-thirds majority be required for any companion measure?

Plain-English summary

Representatives John Richardson and David Lemoine asked the Maine AG two procedural questions about initiated bills, the citizen-direct-legislation route to the ballot in Maine. First, when does an initiated bill go to the voters? Second, can a competing measure go on the ballot alongside it?

AG Steven Rowe responded with an informal letter pointing the representatives to two earlier authorities and explaining the AG's current view that those authorities remain sound.

The first source was AG Opinion 86-8 (April 9, 1986). It concluded that the Legislature may, by joint order, require a special election at a time other than at a general election on any measure submitted to a vote of the people under Article IV, Part 3, § 18.2 of the Maine Constitution, even though § 18.2 states that an "election thereon shall be held at the next general election." The opinion's reasoning is that the Constitution sets the default time but does not foreclose the Legislature's power to schedule earlier votes on referred measures. AG Rowe noted the opinion was old but the reasoning "remains sound" and no contrary judicial interpretation had appeared. He cautioned that this is the AG's considered view, not binding judicial precedent.

The second source was the Opinion of the Justices, 682 A.2d 661 (Me. 1996). That opinion concluded that the two-thirds majority requirement does not apply because the action of the Legislature in referring a measure is "not an act or law." Opinions of the Justices are advisory, not binding precedent like a decision on the merits of a litigated case, but they reflect the considered views of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justices on the legal issues and assumed facts before them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What is the difference between a joint order and a regular bill?
A: A joint order is a procedural action by both houses of the Maine Legislature that does not create or amend statutory law. Joint orders can address how legislative business proceeds, including scheduling elections on referred measures.

Q: Are AG opinions and opinions of the Justices binding?
A: Neither is binding on a court. AG opinions are the considered view of the AG's office; opinions of the Justices are advisory views of the Supreme Judicial Court Justices on legal questions framed by the Governor or Legislature.

Q: When does an initiated bill go to a vote if the Legislature does nothing?
A: Under Maine Constitution Art. IV, pt. 3, § 18.2, the measure goes to a vote at the next general election. The Legislature's authority to call a special election sooner (per AG Op. 86-8) is permissive, not required.

Q: What is a 'competing measure'?
A: When the Legislature considers an initiated bill, it can choose to pass its own alternative legislation and put both on the ballot. The two opinions noted touched on the procedural mechanics of competing measures.

Background and statutory framework

Maine has a robust direct-democracy framework. Article IV, Part Third, § 18 of the Maine Constitution governs initiated bills. Subsection 18.2 sets the default election timing rule. The interplay between this default and the Legislature's ability to call special elections was the subject of AG Opinion 86-8.

AG Rowe's response is unusually informal. He attached the two earlier sources rather than producing a freshly written analysis, and he was candid that the courts "may or may not agree" with the AG's view. This is typical for follow-up requests that ask about settled but never-litigated questions.

Citations

• Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18 (initiated bills generally)
• Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18.2 (default election timing)
• Maine AG Opinion 86-8 (April 9, 1986) (special election timing for referred measures)
• Opinion of the Justices, 682 A.2d 661 (Me. 1996) (two-thirds rule inapplicable to referred bills)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/2004/ag_20040122.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF MAINE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
6 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-9006

G. STEVEN ROWE
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 22, 2004

Honorable John Richardson
Honorable David Lemoine
Maine House of Representatives
2 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333-0002

Re: Initiated Bill Referral Issues

Dear Representatives Richardson and Lemoine:

In response to your questions regarding the timing of the referral of initiated bills to voters and the placement of a competing measure on the ballot with the initiated bills, I have enclosed a copy of Attorney General Opinion 86-8 (dated April 9, 1986). The opinion concludes that the Legislature may, by joint order, require a special election at a time other than at a general election on any measure submitted to a vote of the people under Me. Const., Art. IV Pt. 3 § 18.2 even though § 18.2 states that an "election thereon shall be held at the next general election." While this opinion was issued some years ago, the reasoning remains sound and there has been no contrary judicial interpretation, though of course this is simply the considered view of this Office and the courts may or may not agree.

Also enclosed is a copy of the Opinion of the Justices, 682 A.2d 661 (Me. 1996), which addressed the two-thirds majority issue. The opinion concludes that the two-thirds majority does not apply because the action of the Legislature is not an act or law. Because opinions of the justices are advisory in nature, they do not bind the Court or serve as judicial precedent in the same way as a decision on the merits of a litigated case. These opinions represent the views of the Justices on the legal issues and assumed facts before them.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

G. Steven Rowe
Attorney General