Interpretation of Article IV, Part 3, §18 of the Maine Constitution relating to citizen initiatives and action by the Legislature

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) RICHARD S. COHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL STA'l'E 01<' MAINE DEPARTMENT OF THE A'rTORNEY GENERAL AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 Honorable John D. Chapman Honorable Roberts. Howe May 2, 1979 Chairmen, Business Legislation Committee State House Augusta, Maine 04333 Dear Senator Chapman and Representative Howe: STEPHEN L. DIAMOND JOHN S. GLEASON JOHN M. R. PATERSON ROBERT J. STOLT DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL You have inquired as to .. our interpretation 0£ the language in art. IV, pt. 3, § 18 of the Maine Constitution which provides that when an initiated bill is not enacted without change by the Legislature, it "shall be submitted to the electors together with any amended form, substitute, or recommendation of the Legislature, and in such manner that the people can choose between the competing measures.or reject both." More specifically, your inquiry concerns the meaning of "amended form" and "substitute," as those terms. are used in§ 18. The problem stems from the fact that th.ere is present;J..y pending before the. Committee on Business Legislation a measure proposed by th.e. electors which. would repeal 32 M.R.S.A. c. 28 (the "bottle law"). The Legislature has also referred to the Committee ten legislatiye docu1nents which WOU:ld make various amendments to that law.l./ Assuming the initiated bill is not enacted without change by the Legislature, and thus must be submitted to the electorate, the question arises as to which, if any, of the ten legislative·documents would constitute an amended form or substitute so that, if passed by the Legislature, it would have to be placed on the ballot,as a competing measure. The numbers and titles of those legislative documents are set out in Appendix A to this· opinion. Page 2 Based upon Maine case law, we are compelled to conclude that the passage. 0£ any of the ten bills would result in an amended form of,· or substitute for,· :the ''initiated bill under art. IV, pt. 3, § 18. Accordingly, that amended form or substitute would have to be included on the ballot as a competing measure.·· We should add that ·if more than one of the bills were adoptiad by :the ·Legislat.ure, · it is our view that they would, col·lective.ly constitute a single competing measure. In other words, the alternatives ·available to the electorate would be: 1) acceptance of"the initiated bill; 2) acceptance of .the-bottle bill as amended ('regardless·of the number of amendments); or 3) rejection ·of both· (:resulting in the preservation of the existing law) •· · We shall proceed to explain t.h.e reasons for our conclusion. ·The principal, case on this question is Farris, ex.rel. Dorsky v. Goss, 143 Me. 227 ('1948). ·. In··~norsky,· the' Legislature failed to enact an ini-tiated measure .(the "Barlow·bill"). which would have placed certain restr:i.ction·s ··on ··,organized labor. Instead, it passed the "Tabb bill" which.'·treated·some, but not all, of the subjects included i;n th.e: "Ba.r-low··bill·." The Law · Court held. that the· Legislature, 1 s version· was a substitute for the measure proposed by the electors, and.thus the Secretary 0£ State was required to place bothversions·on·the initiative ballot. In construing·art. I.V, pt. 3, § 18, the Court .initially observed that it. is :irrelevant·whether"the Legislature intends or perceives a partticular bill to be a competing measure. Rather, that determination must be made·in accordance with the test articulated by·the Court. "A bi.11 wh.ich deals bro.adly·:with. the same general subject matter i . ·particu- larly i.f ·•it deals with it .in'. a ,manner inconsistent· with ·the. ·ini.tiated·· ·measure. so that the two cannot stand:' together, is such a substitute as was '.referred to in. • • . [art.. IV, pt. 3 ~ § .l.8] . 11 Dorsky,··su:pra·, at 232. · Close analysis of the DorskyoP,inion reveals that the Court's test turns primari.ly on whether· the various bills· are 'inconsistent with each. other. . In dealing with th.is •,issue, 'the Court expressly analogizes a competing measure to· the re.peal or amendment of a statute by implication. Invoking· ·the''law· on repeal by implication, Pc :re 3 Dorsky _focuses ·_on whe.ther th.e _bill introduced th.rough the customary legislative process would be inconsistent·with, or· repugnant to, the measure initiated by the electors,. so'that the two could not coexist. 21 · . The only modification to Dorsky has been on the subject of emergency leg.islation·. Relying on the ·Legislature's constitu- tional power to enact such legislation, art. IV, pt. 3, § 16, the Law._ Court in. ~cCaffrey v. GartleY,,· ·377 A.2.d·,1367 (Me., 1977), held that. an·eme:/=gency amendment to "the uniform·property tax law would not be3q. competing measu.re"wi.th_ an initiated bill to repeal that law ~.:2.L • The Mccaffrey opin_ion · strongly. suggests, however, 'th.at"the Dorskz holding remains the law·of Maine with respect to nonemergency·measures. · "We de.aided in Dor sky that ··merely enacting •inconsistent legislation could be· sufficient and, .in that· case, was sufficient··• [to create a competing measure]. 11 : -~cCa.ffrey, supra, at 1371. "If°,.the -Legislatur6 desires.that·a proposal .be offered as an amended.: form of an initiated bill.,· it may invoke the .oo·rsky rule by· pass- ing a nonemergency measure, inconsistent with the initiated bill, that will be treated. like an amended·· :form of, or sub- stitute for, the initiated bill." Id. In short, the "inconsistency test" still:governs nonemergency legislation. _One commentator has explained ·.·the Dorsky standard in the . following language: .. · 1 · "Do the two mea.sures ·dea.1·· with the same subject; ctnd are they measures which cannot stand side-by-side·}as. law con- sistently and harmoniously?·•· If so, o_ne is a substitute for·t11.e:other. 11 ·steward, The Law of Initiative Referendum in -Massachusetts, 12 N. Eng. L. Rev. 455, 495 (1977). . .. • The Court noted "how important:it is that the Legislature have the authority to pass.an·emergency bill amending leg- islation that falls within ··the scope of an initiative_· and thereby make the amending mea~ure effective.~mmediatelt•" 377 A. 2d 1'371. See also Opinion of the. Jus·c:i.ces, 370 A. 2d 654. (1977). V PagE 4 Applying the above analysi::, to the· ten legislative documents pending before tµe Committee on Business Legislation, it is our opinion that the passage of any of those bills would create a competing measure. Since the initiated bill seeks to repeal the bottle law,. it is clear that it cannot coexist with legis- lation which wpuldresult in an amended'version of that law. We would add tha.t ·•if more than one· of the· legislative docu- ments were approved by the Legislature, ··the approved bills would constitute· a .:single competing measure. As ·indicated in a prior Opinion of.the Attorney General ·(opinion issued to Secretary of State· GartJ.ey on July 8, .•,1977· - copy· enclosed), "the term 'amended. form' can encompass··· the sum of·· all legis- lative alterations ·of· the initic,ted bill." · · Having. e.xpressed. our : legal· opinion · on ·th:is subject, we would acknowledge that·the·result may ·create certainproblems for the Legislature. Although. the Court in Dor·skx_·pointed out that § 18 "places no curb on th.e enactment of· legislation, 11 143 Me. at 232, i.t can be argued that th.e··prevailing interpreta- ti.on of that section may. operate to det;er legislative action.· Under ·that interpretation,· the Legislature· ·can make minor amendments to the law1· only at the cost: of co_m7P,licating the initiative question±L put before· the voters .2- . Given the relative·clarity of the case law, we cannot advise you that Dorsky:'can 'be interpreted ·to be inapplicable to the present problem. Such advice would be·tantamount to the creation by ·the Offi.ce of . the ·Attorney __ General of an exception to .a judicially-established'rule. 6/ We would point 4/ This is no small cost,··as evidenced·by the fact that art. IV, pt. 3, § 2 0 requires that the .question be ·present:.ed "conc.isely and intelligibly." , .. 1 1. The gravity of this problem was ·'significantly rnit.igated by McCaffrex v. Gartley, supra, which.,allows·the Legislature to enact immediately effective emergency measures. · We might be .inclined to advise,that·th.e rule does not reach a truly de minimus amendment to.·a, law which the electors are seeking to repeal. In our view, ..... to be truly de minimus, the amendment could in no way alterieither.the purpose of the law or the means used to effectuate that purpose. Since none of the bills before the Committee satisfies this criterion, we need not consider.the wisdom of creating such an except.ion in an Opinion·of the Attorney General. Page 5 out, however, that the Dorskz decision:arose out of a significantly different factual situation, insofar as it involved two incon- sistent piece.s .of affirmative legislation,· one proposed by the electors and the other passed by the Legislature. By contrast, the present situation stems from the Legislature 1 s desire to amend a law which the initiative bill would·repea1.· In light of these differences, and in light of the· problem referenced·above, it is possible, altho.ugh by· no means ··certain, 71 that the Court would interpret. § 18 :i.n · a manner which·'.would produce a different re.sult under the· facts as they exist· in this· case. 8/ If the Legislature deems this·possibility to'be of sufficient •importance, the appropriate course of action·would.be for·the Senate or House to request an advisory opinion of the Supreme ·Judicial Court pur- suant to art. VI, § 3 of the Maine Co_~stitution. · Please feel free to contact me if I can be of·any further service. RSC/ec Enclosure (12111 'ri:tcHARD s. co~ Attorney.General J.L 'I'he appellants•in.McCaf£rey ·v. · Ga·rtley, sU),:ra, strenuously argued ·that no·rsk:z should· either be overruled or held inapplicable ·to repealer initiatives .. See 'Brief of Appellants, pp. 1.6 ~24 and Reply Brief of Appellants, ' pp. 10-16. 'I'he Court did not .address. either of those arguments, preferring instead tohold'that·the Dorsky rule does ~ot ·apply· to emergency ·-l~gislation. '' ,, 'I'he ·problem with· modifying Dorsky',. '.·other than by saying that ·the Legislature has the complete authority •to determine what it wishes placed on· the ballot 'as· a·. competing' measure, lies in· formu.lating_ a workable test .i. While it mig'ht be tempting. to exclude all ':bills which are not.·relevant' to the purpose behind the initiated:bill,in·that·they do not offer the · electors either:· an alternative means. of accomplishing the same purpose or an·a1ternative,approach to the over ... all' problem, such a test would·'require a· determination of the "purpose behind the initiated bill." Clearly, the signatories to the initiative petition might have a myriad of. purposes for repealing the ·law.·: While some might con- sider the bills· before the Committee .as alternative ways · of satisfy:41,g their purposes, othe:1=s 'might not. · ~n short, any test requiring a determination of the un~erly1ng :f:>Ur- oose of the initiative bill, in order to dec:i.de what 1.s truly an 'amended forrn 11 or II substitute, 11 is fraught with. problems. '' I v' 'l'he followinJ list sets out the'',legislative ·documents,. pending before the Committee on Business· Legisla·t.ic-n, which ,·.'':.•!.:: would amend various ··provisions in 32°>M."R.S.A. c·. 28 (the . "bottle ·1aw 11 ) •. L.D. 74 L.D. 75 L.D. · 469 ._ .. , ..... ' - .,,A.N ACT 'to· Permit Store Owi1.ers · to Limi:t th.e Hours ·During which..· th(;;iy·: wi·ll' Accept Ret.ur.n- .. able Beverage Containers:' and.'' to Per,:rµi..t thel"n to -Limit t.he .Number of.''Containe.r-s they· will Accept. from ·a Single Person"'-'or Group' at One Time. . . .. '•: ,.~·\-~·.:> .. ,;.:··:•_::: AN ACT ·:to Allow Dealers\to·· Restrict the Hours during ·which,:· they will;-,'Accept: Returnable Beverag~; ··cont.ainers.· .. \'/i/:.;;,,, ·. ·,· · .... ' , •, t ;, ·,,:1,•;(J,/.~ •.•~•::::, _' I An" ACT' to··improve· "the····EfficieI:).cy··ai-i,d Operatim1 of · Redemp·t.ion. Cen·~~ers · .. fart·Re .. l,';.urna~le ·' Cont:ainer s. ',,.,·'1,, . L.D. 699 - . · AN ACT··ta Increas·~ the Handling·· Charge, £or Returnabl:;~ Beverage Cant.ainers ·froin' 1 'f- to 3 I and ·to· Provi.de for J?rampt:,i•' Reimbursement of L.D. 765 . ·!:his Ch.arge to· Dealers ; and· Redemption Centers. : • ' · • ~ ' ~-.)/;.''.::,•:,:i/:-.,•.• .. l • .AN ACT, "Relating to Detex:mi11.a't.i.on' of Refund · Values ·on Bever~ge · Con·ta'~ners. :,-:; :· L. D. 79 3 · - · AN ;,ACT. to · Amend Returnable _;~Beverage ·container .statutes· t:.o Require •Distributor bperat:.io:n. of L.D. 986· - Redemption ·,Centers and•;.·to: Require RefillabJ..e. Containers. · · ·,\ij};:)i<.:/,::,. ,:'. , :·. . , ·, · . • • AN·-'ACT'••t.o Encourage ··t:.h.e/(Aqcept.ance -by Di.stri.- butors· ,.P:l: Beverage·. Containers. ,;, .. ''' L.D. 993 • • , • : 1: 1 ' , ' I ,, : ·':,'; •·:, ~•:,,}~\/,(:,t:/,•~/f(t: :.,: i !' '. • i' ' • , , AN ACT'.:'t.o ;.Provide Recyol-i.:L-i.g}and. Con;;;ervat:.ion ·· · ··Use of ·unredeemed·. Refup:ds.\on·· Bever?-ge :containers. ·. · ,.··· .. · r .· . · ... : r··:· .. _·(·:•;,:,:_·, .. -~):1~t:·~:~t-.f1!I· i.'.\_<·'·\'·· ',)·· ··· .. 1 .. , . L. D. 114·1- > · ·' AN :Ac1r: to · Irnp,rove: the/.Ef'ficiency :·and. Opera·~ion . . · o:E ~edemption: Cent.ers ,·:_f9r_;:.,:1~et.urnA:1?.le · Con·ta1.ners. · ' ', •• ' • t •' ' ' ' •:,, _' \).f;:{:1}1 f,\':'~;,iti))':"1,', 11, 'f ': • ', '• • ' ) .. • '•, '' l ' L.D. 1267- · ~ ACT. to Amend the1;Retu.'rnable Beverage ·con- ' tain·e;c. Statute· to ·Provide~: 1for'.1a·. 2 t·. Handli~g- ,; ' ··charge· for Returnable ·.Bottles. -:\'•. ,, , 1 i : ,,,'; •l('l,,' •; ,,:. , . ' . ' ,',\ 1-'' I ,·}F, JOSEPH E. BRENNAN ATTORNEY GENERAL RlCUM-.D S. COHEN 'JoHN M. R. PATrmsoN . DONALD G. ALEXANDI::lt DEPUTY ATTORNEYS Gl.:.NERAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUGUSTA, lv1_AINE'04 1333 · __ . · July 8, . ' ' ' ' . ·. i ::: ,.,., <' TJie I-I.onorabl~-iMark.ham L. Gartley Secretary of State .. State House . · 1 ' 1• Augusta, Maine 04333 Dear Mr •. Gartley: . The', following responds to your opinion -request concerning · the initiated bill to repeal the u.'1.iform property tax. BACKGROUND' \Ii'/;;;;;:\ . Me. Const. 'Art. IV, Part 3, Section·, 18, establishes the-· procedure for. "direct:. initiative of:.'.1:Legislation. ".. Section 18 . provides that _·unless the Legislaturi;)'.e,nacts . the initiated,. · measure witl:.out change, the measure·fshall 11oe· submitted to the electors ·together with: any· a.....-iended·::form,· substitute or·," recommend_ation, ~f .the Legislature, i·,and\,in, such a manner that. the. pe..ople can. ch\Jo;ae b~t\leen tl.u comJ?eting lTLe;;:asures or rejec·:;: both. 11 · · . , ';• ), : : I,:,;'· : ; ,,;:}\):::}{;), i An initiat:.ed biJ.l to ,repeal the?:.w.1.iform property ta:x: has- . been presented:t.o>.the current sessiori/:·of·/the)Legislat.ure. See · Opinion of the ·Justice~, 370 A.2d 65.f!')(Me. ,,1977) •. , Section_ 2-. -·. of the bill seeks ;-repeal of· 20 MP..S_t\)::~/;:37.47, i·lst sentence · (through· repeal•·: of 1isubsection· 8). :,/.se'Ction -3: .. of .- the bill seeks· repeal of 36 MRSA,1·§ · 451-2 (Supp. 19.:7.6):·.·:' .. Both· § 374.7 and § 451-2 require the Legislature to set the;: mill': . _ rate of the uniform property. tax by April 1st of each: y~.9-:i::_~_(;: .· . ' . ' , ·' ,,' ;,:,;:,:: , ,' , , ·. ~:··, ·'·,'1•.' I.;. ,'>~-.Jit~{~\Yd~?:.~-~-.\;:/:_~_-_,,•'' 1, :_.., • ,·,:' .· ';', '.·'',' ,' .·•,•. I'' \ . l?.L~'· 1977~•,'c. 48 amends bothi20;f1:tJ.RSA'.§ ·,3747:and·36· MRSA' § 451-2 by changing the April . lst: .. de-,'a<?-line fo~ e:"tabli=3hing the mill.·.rate of the uniform property,,(:-ta:x: to_,Apr:i.1 14tn ... · · /' :;'. ·,. · ., · ,' <'~! \·,'.i,: ', . · .\';;t-,\},}.:'.3/).::•:(·, , ; .. ', · . _,, QUESTION· ' ._ '.,:<. ' . · ·: :·:_,.,;t:;•·, <.:· -------· ,: ,: >;/ ::,.,, .:-. '' -::,:;/'(::'.':\\i),,-:·:, ;,, ' > '·,~ :i::s l?'.:G. 19 7?,: c. 48 a competing/measure •with. t.he bill to repeal the uniform p:coperty,/·~-ax, such that c. M1t: . .. , .. , ' ·, i '' ' ', ' ' •:·-:,,.'I, irtitia-t:eJ. 48 will I / .., ,;. 'J."Ut..::: .l.".l.t,llJ..CJJ;. \'.,,U..1..1-1.:! July 8, 1977 l?~ge two have to he submitted to the el,ictorate · at the referendum on the initiated bill? ANSWER: P .. L. 1977, c. 48 together with P.L. 1977, c. 109 is a competing measure with the ,initiated/bill to repeal the uni- form property tax and must be submitted to the electorate at the referendum on the initiated bill. REASONING: C. 48 is an Amended Form · ,. . '. : •·. . ',,(:;\:"(· :,':) ·i: . . ··•·' ' . In an opinion dated September::21,};19 76; this office·. con"."". eluded that a change in the mill rate.:"of the ·uniform property tax consti.tutes an amended .form of. the<;.ini ti~l"i:.ed bill to re- ' peal the uniform property tax. ~':;also Opinion of the At·l:.orney General, .May ·20, · 1977. In reaching· this conclusion, th.is of- fice reasoned that: . , .··:. ,',i r:· ·, '. 1,, • •. II Although a· change in . .:the/mill·. rates does not alter any language iri,the.initiative measure, • it clearly alters;, •. t.he, effect of that. measure •. ··If the mill rates· are changed prior to the referendum on tb.e\initiated measure, the passage of the initiated.:measure will repeal·· the amended version,iiof the. uniform property,tax and,not t.he<version existing at the time,·the initiative petition was. filed~ Thup in::practical terms ·•a:,c;:hange 'in .. the rnill rates amends the initiative.·measure. 11 ,, • .. ;,:-.· '• . ''. , './·\(:):(-:, .. · ', .. " )!.· • /·· 1 1'1' The reasoning of our· Septembed:211.;,~ 19 76; opini-on · applies to a change in the ·date on'which, the•>:mill· rate is· established as well. as to ·a change in the milli:irate:itself. 'Moreover, if the change accomplished by, c. 48. is.\not.,:1' construed as a com- peting measure, ,the, initiative process.:may be ·r frustrated. : The date by which•\the Legislature jmusi:'\est.ab~ish the rai11 · rate bears a critical relation to• the .. leve:lfof'·fl:~nding ,for. education.: ·, Pursuant to the law· as it existeci.··p;ior,., to the enactment of , >'i ' c. 48, the Legislature was required{to, set the: mill rate of the uniform property, tax, , and t.b,.us \,:the.', level of funding for.. : . ·.· education, by .April 1st of every ··year~ '.i;i'. As a· practical matter, this meant that the education budgett:was'. established before · · . . the State appropriated moneys for .. all\· other ·programs. Thus, . when the education bu.dget was· established,· that budget was .· · not in direct competition- with alt,(:other state programs. · ~row'.'."" ever, when the,Legislature changes'.i\the•date.·on:which the mill•: rate must be set:to: later in the yea:r:></the determination.· of., the level of education funding comesi',in~o closer cornpeti~~?n with the· budget setting process for'iall ·0th.er· prog:ca;rns. Ar. each legislative session t.he Legislature may deterrnine when ,' '/. •~•,,, .. • ! :•, •) ;i 1 •, ' I "'#KU!'.;;%~.l\;r~~-~=--::.,i,u=m'======iitm~WZ':'£~~t~~~·1$l.•~~~'l\ .. Tjl.-Z:c!17~.r.u.~.'f1~PZ'>rm:..r(}T,"!J~,f/(i'?;V.:;m.r;;:/~S:'.)1,+f,)"',1_\ 1lHi'/1;~r"l'f;:-?·1 ~ July 8, 1977 Page three it will adopt the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The importance of a particular change in the deadline for estab- lishing the mill rate of the uniform. property tax will depend both upon the length of the change as well as upon the date which the Legislature chooses for adopting the budget.1/ Because the date upon which the budget will be adopted is not set by ,statute·, and thus cannot be predicted, any change in the deadline must be considered as a I substantial change.. Thus, we do not have to reach the question of whether a de minimis change i?- an _initiated bill constitutes an amended form. Form and Number of Cor.1.;eeting Mea,sures ,, .1· •.. In·. an• opinion dated May 20, · 1977).,\:this · office concluded that P .L. · 19 77,. c .. • 109 consti_tuted. an/amended f9r.m of the ini- tiated bill to repeal the unifqrm property tax. '2./ Because c. 48 is also an amended form of the.initiated bill to repeal the uniform property tax, a question}arises as to the content and number of competing bills which: will be submitted to the electorate. " I,,, Me. Const. Art. IV, Pt. 3, § ia;provides t:h.at initiated bills "shall be submitted to the electors together with any amended form .• · .and in. such manner·:t.hat. the people can choose between the competing measures or reject· both. 11 'I'he use of the word "both" in the above quoted provision apparently li1nits the bills which can be sent to referendurn to two - the initi- ated biJ.l and'one·competing measure. ·see Farris•ex reJ. Dorsky v. Goss, 143 Me. 227, 240 (1948) (dissenting opinion). 'l;nus, c. 48 and. c. J.09 apparently cannot ·.both be separate competing measures. -------------------------------------~ y 1'1• '\:.'/, ' L.D. 1828, Ai~ ,ACT to Reform the','.State Budget.ary Process, establishes May J.st as the date;,.for: setting the mill rate of the· uniform property tax.· (.According to the Statement of· Fact, "[t]he purpose of ,the',ii);:)ill. is to establish a uni- form date for··determining the:;cu~rent services expenditures, including· education, by moving:\the existing deadline· for setting education expenditures'i',1ito\ May 1st. The same, dead- line for ·the·, Part I budget would be established through. the Joint Rules. 11 · , •:, it.'' . · · · P.L. 1977, c. 109, repeals th,e:<1anguage in 36 M.R:S.A. · § 451-2 which establishes tne,mill rate of the uniform· property tax at: 12. 5 mills fo:c:·,,,the. years after June. 30, · 1977,·and requires the Legislature.to set the ::ate ii: ac- cordance with 20 11.R.S.A. § 3747.: Section 3747 rcqu:i..res the Legislature to annually establish the uniform property tax rate at a level such that\revenues will not 11 e:x:cc.cd · , , 50%. of the basic education allocation." ,,.,, ,:1.f!i;! uonc,,.., .. ;u .1.·n+.i.j•H - - . i~!~ ~;;~ 9 77 . • )~;\![11Jti:t:,.. ' <· Section 18 could be interi;,reted:'.1so:,.·that alter- . ation of the· initiated bill would constitute a· competing.· measure. · · For· example, the first, alteration · enacted by the Legislature, (c. 48). could be the. sol'e)'.competing measure •. ·. How-· ever, such an interpretation could result• in a .total frustra-· , tion of the in.i tiative process.. If.,;, alterations of the ini ti-· · ated 'bill er.i,acted subsequent to the)iifirst' alteration• are. not·'.:>; .·.·subject: to '"the restrictions of § 18A\then· the 'Legislature, can·,.,: .. · amend the initiated. measure without:-,'limitation. Thus, at ref-. • erendum, >. 'the'!<,electora te · wi 11 vote. whether, to · approve or dis- ·. · approve of ·an: initiated .. bill which:,has:::been substantially al-· tered from its original form. /n·.·;::(:,::,,.' . ,, , ..•.. ,. ,,_,, .... : ,,:y,/,.,i,'•;, .• ,'<iti. · . : · . ·•·· · · · · ; . .'\ii\,;(:;'\l.\:\§1:i . In :·norsky~::,1:::th·e:.;supreme •Judici'al\Cour-t.·.· ;;;xplai~ed ,that: ':· , .. ., ".',• ,··~'-', ·,, .. <.\(,:!,\i,'.'.~.:://:•,'.\/::•:_.::•,.;,::,.,,:,.::.,.,>~l ;,.' ,'. '., .. ·.,. :, 'i::'·,f}~·;J.1~{~;~::r;1-t'.,V,l~!{\,· :i.-:·,:\',.'1,::'.:: 1 •• • .I<·,- ,1 'The•1:·r-;Lgh t , of' ,the I peopJ,E?' rvas ',provided' by [§,' 18] .of_..·the·. Constituti9.n~·h,.,to _:enact legis- . ·.J.ation,:,and. approve,··or .di:s'approve :legislation .. ·> enacted,by'-'the. legislatu:i;::~\,iis:.O)an; absolute . ·. · , one/,.and'.;':cannot\be ,.abridgedi{directly.;\or>in-··· , · d.irectly,;,by,, any action. of::kt.p.e\LegisJ.ature. ·. · ·, ' 143 Me •. 227~ at 231. ,·, ,.'-·:'•rS,1··:',;,:,,/,,:. ·, ' ',:\',(,1,,·•1d ·I: (\1·' ! ' 11 j ' 0 1\· ' . ,'' ;l·l:~r(t?i,c1\1;:ri•,·1t)/;1·~, ·l,I I'•(:«.,·. ··, ' :·_',:,: The interpretation:,·,/ of '§ 18 ',set , for'ili1i'(~~\ ... the ,,'preced.i!lg paragraph . (that. on1y/the::f:Lrst .alterationi. ofj)tp.'~:;yinitiated,· bill· cqnsti:- .. , 1 ;'· tut.es, ·an:iamended•'form) :'permits the'J;:~egislature >t:o abridge ,the\:·• .. ,.,electorate• s:, righti, to . enact· ini tfated;/bills ~:;,. In :·order ,to:, avoid' ·'the possibility of:.' this. interierence\;with:th'e/initiative pro:-:-: · 1 : ·, , •• ' cess, the· amended:f:Eorrn submitted,' t:o',{lj:he:,):eJ.ect.orat<; ';should,,. con.:c :.: tain .the surn ... o;Eall amendments, of:Utli.'e';.;1)initiated··,bill."'Which!,are:i · .. '.·construed' as.: constituting competil'lgJ\i:measures ~·. Thus. t.he rcom-;,. : . . peting 1 measurer which ,will, be., submi;tt~_ctJ.\:t:o>·th.'e electorate'.';: at>}•''.· ·::.·::the· referendum.·~,on:f~he'finitiat~d'/~,f:~'.I;(tto;1\x-eJ_:)~~l,;,:t,he:•:.un~fo_r1~·-.· .. :'/1\/ : :property , t.ax:l:wi;l1\\1.ncl~de: both ... :c,.'rti~'.f3}~·;?.J.l".l.B:1/C.: ~·:,\109. ,1,/; .. Aga.J..n ,·,.· :i.t.1:-::, ·.· ·. · ,. , should be noted1: that<•§fl8tdoes,1:no.t:,::~J:'..~,';I\l1.re'.iiall'.·,arnendment.s /of·,.· . . ··.·.the initiated 1.bill/>1;0/be:.'.subroitte<;11~1to'ifi-thec:.elector.ate. •· ; Rather, · : 1 • • o: § 18. only'. requires/,thatt;iany amen~e~}'.)fp:i:;m).of.,,}.,the, initiated, bi11,. • 1-. 1';··· • •· be sent'.out·::•to,.referendum. 1 iiThe•:::1.tt'.i':3;:ai:;:meaning•,of ,·the. term:,,,.: · 1 ' ' • "amended: form 1t:!/ca.n!:·encompass; tri.'~'.';::s\w1:dofta1l\•;}egisla:t.ivetalter"."".' . . . ations·' of: the:::·in'itiate.d:ibill;,,:,n•1;re'o.t-Eirf;,!,- su~h1·'.a11 .. interpretation: ' 'i',,(· protects' ' I '. . '' of,: the initiat':i.'ve\ process ,,f:com legisla-:-.• ;'· ,•,·•,: .'• - • j •f t t' • ., ' '1 •\'.;);/,{:;;:,1/~ti,:•:t/}\~••i:·'.:)'.~;ii:-;,, ,•(.\ ,.,._:.., ,';, ,.' • + I ... tl.Ve·. rus ra ion :,.· ;,::. -i'hjl;,•,;ai\'i,.:i,.':•1:, 11• ,•.,:.•t•·/ ... ,.,:·.· . , . • , ,' '.1,:::t\i}~'i}i:\{{,~,~~j;?f(:(?~\t:.:: ._,·:>i ::,};.:-~<. 1J::,:'·/: .':_ .. :; <- ~ ., Ver-.1;;~;t.~u3--y·. yours , · • ,, ~ ,"11:it/'{\i,,:~•;(•:1,Jf: ',,\ ':·• 1 l , , ;f1~:;;i1~itf/y,:e.·>·17···,·.· · · . . , , · •.:.; 'ii , ' ' •r,/// 1 / ~ - - - 11 I' . q;OSEl?I9.E,·:··BRENNAl\J ', . . ,·· AttOf4.~Y?:.General.'/,':\<•. , ·. ---------------~~=-»1Mf."'',y;w.~u:~.'TI:i),~~~~E~~ZEtr;;;~~::f]7.::a~~?'i;Z~ft:i.~:;r;t;s·,;,:;;;r1!7;f:-::1~)lf, 1 [ 1I'JJJI//;[j:½E{:t{tt.~f;.\\:rft"!!~~ '·I'.'