Skip Maine state header navigation
Maine Green Perty v. Secretary of State Download as PDF Wordperfect 3 Back to Opinions page MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 1997 ME 175 Docket: Fed-97-120 Argued: June 16, 1997 Decided: August 1. 1997 Panel: WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, RUDMAN, and LIPEZ, JJ.
MAINE GREEN PARTY v. SECRETARY OF STATE
RUDMAN, J.
[¶1] Pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 57 (1989) and M.R. Civ. P. 76B,{1} the
United States District Court for the District of Maine (Carter, J.) has
certified the following question of state law to this Court:
Does 21-A M.R.S.A. § 301(1)(C) require that a political party
which had qualified for official party status in Maine because its
candidate for Governor received more than five percent (5%) of
the vote in the last gubernatorial election be disqualified if its
candidate for President at the next succeeding election fails to
receive five percent (5%) of the presidential vote?
[¶2] We first note that there is no dispute as to the material facts at
issue, there are no clear controlling precedents, and our answer would, in
one alternative, be determinative of this case. Thus, our exercise of
jurisdiction in this case is proper. See League of Women Voters v. Secretary
of State, 683 A.2d 769, 771 (Me. 1996); Dasha v. Maine Med. Ctr., 665 A.2d
993, 995 (Me. 1995).
[¶3] In the 1994 election Jonathan Carter, a candidate for Governor
of Maine after his nomination by petition, 21-A M.R.S.A. §§ 351-357 (1993
& Supp. 1996), received more than five percent of the vote. As a result,
during 1995 and 1996, pursuant to 21-A M.R.S.A. § 302 (1993),{2} the Maine
Green Party formed as a new political party. The Secretary of State
recognized the Green Party as an official party in March 1996. It thus
became eligible to nominate candidates for state and federal office in the
1996 election. The Green Party nominated Ralph Nader as its presidential
candidate in the 1996 election. Nader received less than five percent of the
vote in that election.
[¶4] Anticipating that the Secretary of State would disqualify it as a
party pursuant to 21-A M.R.S.A. §§ 301, 304 & 305 (1993),{3} in November
1996 the Green Party filed a complaint in the United States District Court.
It sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment favorable to its
position with respect to the meaning of 21-A M.R.S.A. § 301(1)(C): that the
statute allows it to maintain qualified status because its gubernatorial
candidate polled at least five percent of the vote in the last gubernatorial
election. In accord with the parties' agreement, the court enjoined the
Secretary of State from disqualifying the Green Party pending resolution of
the action and certified the question at issue. We conclude that section
301(1)(C) requires the Green Party to be disqualified as a political party
because its candidate polled less than five percent of the vote in the last
general election, and accordingly we answer the certified question in the
affirmative.
Statutory Construction
[¶5] The Green Party contends that the statute allows a political party
to retain qualified status if either its gubernatorial candidate polled at least
five percent of the vote in the last gubernatorial election, or its presidential
candidate polled at least five percent of the vote in the last presidential
election. Conversely, the State contends that the statute allows a political
party to maintain qualified status only if that party's presidential or
gubernatorial candidate polled at least five percent of the vote in the last
biennial general election. Both parties contend that its position is
supported by the plain language of the statute and is consistent with the
overall statutory scheme.
[¶6] When faced with a question of statutory construction, we seek to
discern the intent of the Legislature by examining the plain language
contained in the statute and consider the particular language in the context
of the whole statutory scheme. See, e.g., State v. Butt, 656 A.2d 1225, 1227
(Me. 1995); Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 651 A.2d 358, 360 (Me. 1994);
Fraser v. Barton, 628 A.2d 146, 148 (Me. 1993); Stanley v. Tilcon Maine,
Inc., 541 A.2d 951, 952 (Me. 1988). In the instant case, however, our
review of the statutory language and statutory scheme governing elections,
Title 21-A, provides little guidance in resolving the question presented.
The plain meaning of the statutory language could be construed to support
either party's position. Further, a review of the statutory scheme reveals
that either party's interpretation of the statute could lead to an illogical
result.{4}
Legislative History
[¶7] We turn next to the legislative history of the statute. Each party
contends that the statute's history supports its respective interpretation.
We find the interpretation propounded by the State to be more persuasive.
[¶8] The Statement of Fact accompanying a 1976 amendment that
later became section 301 provides in pertinent part: "Under this section, a
party that was on the ballot in the last general election could qualify again if .
. . its candidate for Governor or President received at least 2% of the vote
that year." Comm. Amend. A to L.D. 2140, Statement of Fact (107th Legis.
1976). The reference to the last general election in the statement of fact
establishes that the Legislature intended that qualified political parties show
the requisite support in each biennial general election, whether that
election is for Governor or President.{5} The language adopted in the 1976
amendment is identical to the present language of section 301(1)(C).{6} 21-A
M.R.S.A. § 301(1)(C) (1993); Comm. Amend. A to L.D. 2140, § 321(1)(C)
(107th Legis. 1976). We conclude, therefore, that the legislative intent
behind the current statutory language remains as it was expressed in 1976.
[¶9] We are also persuaded by the fact that the Legislature has twice
rejected proposals that would have amended section 301 in a way consistent
with the Green Party's interpretation. In 1995 the Legislature considered
and rejected a proposal that would have allowed a party to qualify to
participate in a primary election if its designation was listed on the ballot in
either of the last two preceding general elections and if its candidate for
Governor or President polled at least five percent of the total vote cast for
Governor or President in either of the last two preceding elections.{7} The
Summary of the 1997 bill provides:
This bill increases access to the ballot and other election
processes for new parties, . . . as follows:
1. Modifies the frequency of the 5% vote requirement
from the current 2-year cycle to a 4-year cycle . . . .
L.D. 1376, Summary (118th Legis. 1997) (emphasis added). The defeat of
the 1995 and 1997 bills provides strong support for the State's
interpretation of section 301. See Commodity Futures Trading Commission
v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 846 (1986), (quoting N.L.R.B. v. Bell Aerospace Co.
416 U.S. 267, 274-75 (1974) (footnotes omitted)) ("It is well established
that when Congress revisits a statute giving rise to a longstanding
administrative interpretation without pertinent change, the 'congressional
failure to revise or repeal the agency's interpretation is persuasive evidence
that the interpretation is the one intended by Congress.'"); Strickland v.
Commissioner, Maine Dept. of Human Serv., 96 F.3d 542, 547 (1st Cir.
1996) ("This combination- congressional awareness of an existing
administrative praxis coupled with a concomitant unwillingness to revise
that praxis-strongly implies legislative approval."). In light of the clear
statement of legislative intent and the subsequent actions of the Legislature,
we conclude that section 301(1)(C) requires that a political party's
candidate must poll five percent of the vote in the last biennial general
election in order for the party to maintain qualified status.
[¶10] We answer the certified question in the affirmative.
Attorneys for plaintiff:
Paul D. Manetti, Esq. (orally)
Greenberg & Greenberg
97A Exchange Street, Suite 404
Portland, ME 04101
Susan J Parcels, Esq.
41 Tremaine Street
Portland, ME 04103
Attorneys for defendant:
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General
H. Cabanne Howard, Asst. Atty Gen. (orally)
6 State House Station
Augusat, ME 04333-0006
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} 4 M.R.S.A. § 57 (1989)
provides in pertinent part: When it shall appear to the Supreme Court of
the United States, or to any court of appeals or district court of the United
States, that there are involved in any proceeding before it one or more
questions of law of this State, which may be determinative of the cause,
and there are no clear controlling precedents in the decisions of the Supreme
Judicial Court, such federal court may certify any such questions of law
of this State to the Supreme Judicial Court for instructions concerning
such questions of state law, which certificate the Supreme Judicial Court
sitting as a law court may, by written opinion, answer. M.R. Civ. P. 76B
provides the procedural requirements for certifying questions. {2} 21-A
M.R.S.A. § 302 (1993) provides: Formation of new party; organization
about a candidate A party whose designation was not listed on the general
election ballot in the last preceding gubernatorial or presidential election
qualifies to participate in a primary election, if it meets the requirements
of subsections 1, 2 and 3. 1. Declaration of intent. A voter or a group
of voters who are not enrolled in a party qualified under section 301 must
file a declaration of intent to form a party with the Secretary of State
before 5 p.m. on the 180th day preceding a primary election. The declaration
of intent must be on a form designed by the Secretary of State and must
include: A. The designation of the proposed party; B. The name of a candidate
for Governor or for President in the last preceding gubernatorial or presidential
election who was nominated by petition under [sections 351-357] and who
received 5% or more of the total vote cast in the State for Governor or
for President in that election; C. The signed consent of that candidate;
and D. The name and address of the voter or one of the group of voters who
file the declaration of intent. 2. Enrollment of voters. After filing the
declaration described in subsection 1, the voter or voters proposing to
form the party may then enroll voters in the proposed party under section
141 to 145. 3. Municipal caucuses. The proposed party must conduct municipal
caucuses in at least one municipality in each of the 16 counties during
that election year as prescribed in [sections 311-315]. The chairman of
the municipal committee or a resident voter in the municipality must file
a copy of the notice required by section 311, subsection 3, with the Secretary
of State before 5 p.m. on April 15th. 4. Convention. A party which has qualified
under subsection 1, 2 and 3 to participate in a primary election must, in
that same year, hold a state convention, as prescribed by [sections 321
and 322], in order to have the party designation of its candidates printed
on the ballot in the general election of that year. The voter or group of
voters who file the declaration of intent may perform the duties of the
state committee under section 321, subsection 1, for the party's initial
convention. {3} 21-A M.R.S.A. § 301 (1993) provides: Qualified parties
1. Primary election. A party qualifies to participate in a primary election
if its designation was listed on the general election ballot in the last
preceding gubernatorial or presidential election and if: A. The party held
municipal caucuses as prescribed by [sections 311-315] in at least one municipality
in each county in the State during that election year and fulfills this
same requirement during the year of the primary election; B. The party held
a state convention as prescribed by [sections 321 and 322] during that election
year; C. Its candidate for Governor or for President polled at least 5%
of the total vote cast in the State for Governor or President in the last
preceding gubernatorial or presidential election; and D. Each state party
committee must file a statement with the Secretary of State on or before
April 4th certifying that the party has held the municipal caucuses required
by paragraph A. The statement must be signed by the party chairman or his
designated agent. 2. General election. A party which qualifies under subsection
1 to participate in a primary election must, in that same year, hold a state
convention as prescribed by [sections 321 and 322] in order to have the
party designation of its candidates printed on the ballot in the general
election of that year. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 304 (1993) provides: Disqualification
of parties A party which qualified under sections 302 or 303 to participate
in the last preceding primary and general elections is not qualified to
participate in a subsequent primary election unless it meets the requirements
of section 301. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 305 (1993) provides: Secretary of State
The Secretary of State shall determine whether or not a party has met the
requirements of sections 301, 302 and 303. {4} The Green Party contends
that the political viability of a party is measured on a four- year cycle
based on the statutory definition of "major party." A "major
party" is defined as "a political party polling the greatest or
the next greatest number of votes cast for "Governor at the last gubernatorial
election." 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1(22) (1993). Thus, major parties are
defined on a four-year rather than a two-year cycle. Pursuant to 21-A M.R.S.A.
§ 103(1) (1993), in cities or towns with a population of 5,000 or more,
the three-member local board of registration consists of one member of each
of the two major parties and one member appointed by the municipal officers.
Board members serve for a period of three years. Id. at § 103(3). Accordingly,
the State's interpretation could lead to a situation in which, for a period
of about one year, one or two members of a local board are members of a
disqualified political party. Nevertheless, the Green Party's interpretation
also leads to an illogical result. As a consequence of the Green Party's
interpretation, the statute would allow a qualified party which runs a candidate
for President not only to run another candidate for President four years
hence, but the party would also be entitled to run candidates for the State
Legislature, even if it ran no candidate for Governor in the intervening
election (or its candidate did not receive 5% of the vote). {5} During the
legislative debate on the bill, Representative Boudreau, who at that time
was the House Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Elections, also refers
to the effects of the legislation in terms of the last general election:
Mrs. BOUDREAU: . . . . . . . [T]he first procedure that can be used to organize
a new party . . . is organization about a candidate. . . . [After meeting
the statutory requirements] you proceed the same as either of the present
parties do. . . . . . . . Okay, say you go through the election and in the
general election your candidate or your party do not receive two percent
of the vote. Then you have to start all over again. . . . . Mr. HEWES: .
. . Does this have to be a statewide election . . . ? . . . . Mrs. BOUDREAU:
. . . [I]t has to be a gubernatorial or presidential. Legis. Rec. 648 (1976)
(emphasis added). {6} With the exception that the amendment required a candidate
to poll only two rather than five percent of the vote. {7} The 1995 proposed
amendment to 21-A M.R.S.A. § 301(1)(C) provided: A party qualifies
to participate in a primary election if its designation was listed on the
general election ballot in the