Constitutionality of L.D. 23, reimbursing the town of Eastbrook for losses caused by excessive valuation

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) STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 April 26, 1979 Honorable David G. Huber, Chairman Honorable Michael D. Pearson, Chairman State House Augusta, Maine 04333 Dear Senator Huber and Representative Pearson: STEPHEN L. DIAMOND, JOHN S. GLEASON Jom; \1. R. PATERso:-; ROBERT J. STOLT I am writing in response to your request for advice con- cerning the constitutionality of L.D. 23, "Resolve to Reimburse the Town of Eastbrook in the Amount of $25,644.35 for Losses Caused by Excessive State Valuation." We are of the opinion that L.D. 23, if enacted, would not violate either the Special Legislation Clause (art. IV, pt. 3, § 13) or the Equal Protection Clause (art. I, § 6-A) of the Maine Constitution. In an earlier opinion we prepared for you (March 6, 1979), we indicated that resolves of this type, dealing with individuals and organizations, were subject to analysis under the Equal Protection and Special Legislation Clauses of our Constitution. Nadeau v. State, 395 A.2d 107 (1978). We are of the view that our conclusions-in that opinion should not be extended to cover resolves authorizing payments to municipalities. Municipalities are mere agents of the State. Their exist- ence, powers and duties lie within the control of the Legislature. See, Opinion of the Justices, 133 Me. 532 (1935); Sawyer v. Gilmore, 109 Me. 169 (1912). Necessarily the Legislature enjoys great latitude in dealing with its political subdivisions. Although the Law Court in Nadeau invalidated certain forms of legislatively enacted preferential treatment for indi- viduals and organiz~tions, the courts have not indicated whether the Nadeau rule applies to municipalities. As dis- cussed above, municipalities occupy a status different from that Page 2 of individuals and organizations. Given that fact and given the presumption of constitutionality accorded acts of the Legislature, it is our view that the Nadeau rule should be treated as inapplicable to municipalities until the courts specifically indicate oth.erwi.se. Thus, we perceive no legal barrier to the enactment of L.D. 23. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hestiate to call on us. Attorney General RSC/ec