MAINESUPREMEJUDICIALCOURT ReporterofDecisionsDecision: 2018ME52Docket: Ken-18-130Argued: April12,2018Decided: April17,2018Panel: SAUFLEY,C.J.,andALEXANDER,MEAD,GORMAN,JABAR,HJELM,andHUMPHREY,JJ.

MAINESENATEv.

SECRETARYOFSTATEetal.PERCURIAM

[¶1] The Superior Court (Kennebec County,Murphy, J.) has reported

sevenquestionstouspursuanttoM.R.App.P.24(a),addressingtheSecretary

ofState’splannedimplementationofranked-choicevotinginMaine’sprimary

elections scheduled for June 12, 2018.1 The first three questions are

substantive,andtheremainingquestionsaddressthejusticiabilityofthosefirst

threequestions.ThisopinionfocusesonlyontheJune2018primaryelection;

itdoesnotaddressanyotherpotentialapplicationofranked-choicevotingin

Maine.

1TheCommitteeforRanked-ChoiceVoting,alongwithprospectivecongressional,legislative,and

gubernatorialcandidatesLucasSt.Clair,MarkEves,DianeRussell,BetsySweet,andBenChipman,intervenedinthematterintheSuperiorCourt.SeeM.R.Civ.P.24.

2

[¶2] Weaccept theReport,answerQuestion3on itsmerits, conclude

thattheotherquestionsraisenonjusticiableissues,andremandthematterto

theSuperiorCourtforentryofafinaljudgment.Insummary:

(1) Weassume,withoutdeciding,thattheMaineSenate,asinglebodyofthebicameralMaineLegislature, has standing to seek adeclarationregarding the legal statusof ranked-choicevoting in the June2018primaryelectionsandtochallengeincourttheoperationalplanningoftheSecretaryofState,whoisaconstitutionalofficer;

(2) WeanswerReportedQuestion 3 and determine that ranked-choicevotingisthecurrentstatutorylawofMainefortheprimaryelectionstobeheldonJune12,2018;

(3) WedeterminethatReportedQuestions1and2,whichasktheCourttoactincontraventiontotheconstitutionalprovisionrespectingtheseparation of powers of the three independent Branches ofgovernment,arenotjusticiable;and

(4) Wedeterminethattheremainingquestionsaremoot.

3

I.BACKGROUND

[¶3]Thehistoryofranked-choicevotinginMainetodatecouldprovide

thesubstanceofanentirecivicscourseonthecreationofstatutorylawinthe

StateofMaine.Weprovidethehighlightshere.

[¶4]In2016,thepeopleofMaineenactedcitizen-initiatedlegislationto

implementranked-choicevotingforgeneralandprimaryelectionsoccurring

on or after January 1, 2018, for the offices of United States Senator and

Representative,StateSenatorandRepresentative,andGovernor.2 L.D.1557,

§§1-6 (referred to the voters, 127th Legis. 2016) (effective Jan. 7, 2017)

(codifiedat21-AM.R.S.§§1(27-C),1(35-A),601(2)(J),722(1),723-A(2017));

seeMe.Const.art.IV,pt.3,§18.TheRanked-ChoiceVotingAct3createdbythe

citizens’initiativedidnot,however,amend21-AM.R.S.§723(1)(2017),4which

2TheRanked-ChoiceVotingAct,whichwerefertoastheRCVA,definedan“[o]fficeelectedby

ranked-choice voting” as any office for “United States Senator, United States Representative toCongress,Governor,StateSenatorandStateRepresentative,and. . .anynomination[]byprimaryelection tosuchoffices.” L.D.1557,§1(effective Jan.7.2017)(codifiedat21-AM.R.S.§1(27-C)(2017)).3TheRanked-ChoiceVotingActwasofficiallytitled,“AnActToEstablishRanked-choiceVoting.”

L.D.1557.

4AtthetimetheRCVAwasenactedbycitizenvote,21-AM.R.S.§723(2015)wasineffect.OnJune22,2017,theLegislatureamendedsection723.P.L.2017,ch.248,§§1-9(effectiveNov.1,2017)(codified at 21-A M.R.S. §§ 144, 145, 311(1), 723(1)(A), (2), 753-B(5) (2017)); 30-AM.R.S.§§757(2)(A),2528(4)(C)(2017)).Theseamendments,enactedpriortothemajorrevisionmadeby“AnActToImplementRanked-choiceVotingin2021,”P.L.2017,ch.316,§§1-14(effectiveFeb.5,2018),madeno substantive changes to the votingmethod, butmodified section723and severalotherprovisionsastovoterenrollmentrequirements.P.L.2017,ch.248,§§1-9.Theseinterveningamendmentsdonotaffectthecurrentdispute.Wethereforecitetothe2017versionofsection723.

4

statesthat“[i]naprimaryelection,thepersonwhoreceivesapluralityofthe

votescastfornominationtoanyoffice,aslongasthereisatleastonevotecast

forthatoffice,isnominatedforthatoffice.”Thus,section723(1)continuedto

provide that the winner of a primary election would be determined by a

pluralityofthevotes,evenwhilesection1(27-C)namedprimaryelectionsas

amongthoseelectionstobeconductedusingranked-choicevoting.

[¶5] OnMay23,2017,attherequestoftheMaineSenatepursuantto

Me.Const.art.VI,§3,we,asindividualJusticesoftheMaineSupremeJudicial

Court,issuedaunanimousAdvisoryOpinionstatingthatspecificaspectsofthe

RCVAconflictwiththreeportionsoftheMaineConstitution—Me.Const.art.IV,

pt.1,§5;Me.Const.art.IV,pt.2,§4;andMe.Const.art.V,pt.1,§3.Opinionof

theJustices,2017ME100,¶¶1,7,9,57,64-68,72,162A.3d188.Thosesections

address the electionof theGovernor andmembersof theMaineLegislature,

bothSenatorsandRepresentatives.5 Me.Const.art. IV,pt.1,§5;Me.Const.

art.IV,pt.2,§4;Me.Const.art.V,pt.1,§3.

5 In the Senate’s request for an Advisory Opinion regarding the constitutionality of the

ranked-choicevotingstatute,wewerenotaskedtoaddressprimaryelections,whicharegovernedentirelybystatuteandfindnosourceintheMaineConstitutionitself. SeeOpinionoftheJustices,2017ME100,¶3,162A.3d188;seealso21-AM.R.S.§§331-40(2017);InrePrimaryElectionBallotDisputes2004,2004ME99,¶3,857A.2d494.

AlthoughtheAdvisoryOpiniondidnotgeneratebindingprecedent,weunanimouslyopinedthatthemethodofranked-choicevotingisinconsistentwithelectionbya“plurality”asthatwordisusedintheMaineConstitution.OpinionoftheJustices,2017ME100,¶¶9,64-69,162A.3d188.

5

[¶6] In themonths that followed,anumberof legislativeeffortswere

commenced regarding ranked-choice voting. See L.D. 1256 (128th Legis.

2017); L.D. 1624 (128th Legis. 2017); L.D. 1625 (128th Legis. 2017).

Ultimately, the Legislature enacted “An Act To Implement Ranked-choice

Voting in 2021,” which we refer to as the Implementation Act. P.L. 2017,

ch.316, §§ 1-14 (effective Feb. 5, 2018); see Comm. Amend. B to L.D. 1646,

No.H-568 (128th Legis. 2017). The ImplementationAct, P.L. 2017, ch. 316,

§§1-14,hadtwoessentialcomponents:

• Itdelayedallaspectsoftheimplementationofranked-choicevotinguntilDecember1,2021,and

• Itprovidedforanautomaticrepealofallranked-choicevotingprovisionsonDecember1,2021,if,bythatdate,theMaineConstitutionhadnotbeenamendedtoallowranked-choicevotingfortheofficesofMaineSenator,MaineRepresentative,andGovernor.

[¶7] ThreedaysbeforetheeffectivedateoftheImplementationAct,a

people’s veto of portions of the Implementation Act was initiated by the

submissionofsignatureslatercertifiedbytheSecretaryofState.SeeMe.Const.

art.IV,pt.3,§§17,20;21-AM.R.S.§§901-906(2017).PursuanttoMe.Const.

art.IV,pt.3,§17(3),theSecretaryofStateannouncedthatthestatewidevote

onwhethertovetothechallengedportionsoftheImplementationActwould

6

take place on June 12, 2018, the same day as the primary elections for the

UnitedStatesHouseandSenate,Governor,andStateHouseandSenate.

[¶8] As a result of the initiation of the people’s veto, certified by the

SecretaryofState,theeffectofthosechallengedportionsoftheImplementation

Actwas“suspended”asofFebruary2,2018,pendingthevoteonJune12,2018.

Me.Const.art.IV,pt.3,§17(2).Criticaltothematterbeforeus,thedelayofthe

implementationofranked-choicevotinguntil2021wassuspended.Asaresult,

the RCVA, along with certain portions of the Implementation Act, became

immediatelyeffective,thuseffectuatingranked-choicevotingfortheJune2018

primaryelections.SeeMe.Const.art.IV,pt.3,§17(2).

[¶9]WiththechallengedportionsoftheImplementationActsuspended,

theprovisionsoflawthatarepertinenttotheprimaryelectionsare:

• Thepreexistingandunamendedportionsoftheelectionsstatutes,

• The provisions put in place by the citizens’ enactment of theRCVA in2016,and

• ThoseportionsoftheImplementationActthatarenotsuspendedbythepeople’sveto.6

6TheImplementationActrepealedthedefinitionof“[o]fficeselectedbyranked-choicevoting”

and replaced itwith a new version of 21-AM.R.S. § 1(27-C)defining “[e]lectionsdetermined byranked-choicevoting”asfollows:

27-C.Electionsdeterminedbyranked-choicevoting.“Electionsdeterminedbyranked-choicevoting”means:

7

[¶10] OnFebruary16,2018,theCommitteeforRanked-ChoiceVoting

and congressional and gubernatorial candidates Lucas St. Clair, Jim Boyle,7

Mark Dion, Mark Eves, Sean Faircloth, Diane Russell, Betsy Sweet, and Ben

Chipman(collectively,theCommittee)filedacomplaintintheSuperiorCourt

againsttheSecretaryofStateseekingadeclaratoryjudgmentthattheSecretary

ofStateisrequiredtoimplementranked-choicevotingintheprimaryelections.

Comm.forRanked-ChoiceVotingv.Sec’yofState,AUGSC-CV-2018-24,at9n.4

(Me.Super.Ct.,KennebecCty.,Apr.3,2018).WeunderstandthattheSecretary

of State initially announced that his officewould implement ranked-choice

voting for theprimary elections,with the initial result that the suitwas not

aggressivelypursued.

[¶11]OnMarch29,2018,theSecretaryofStateindicatedthattherewas

aconflictbetween21-AM.R.S§1(27-C)—directing theuseof ranked-choice

A. Primary elections for the offices of United States Senator, United StatesRepresentativetoCongress,Governor,StateSenatorandStateRepresentative;[and]

B. General and special elections for the offices of United States Senator andUnitedStatesRepresentativetoCongress.

P.L.2017,ch.316,§1.Becauseitisnotchallengedbythepeople’sveto,theversionofsection1(27-C)currentlyinplaceisthatadoptedbytheImplementationAct.Bothversionsofsection1(27-C)(thatenactedbytheRCVAandthatenactedbytheImplementationAct)provideforranked-choicevotingintheprimaryelections,however.7JimBoyleandSeanFairclothhavesincewithdrawnfromthegubernatorialrace.

8

voting in primary elections—and 21-AM.R.S § 723—providing for plurality

winnersinprimaryelections.ImmediatelyaftertheSecretaryofStateraised

thisissue,theCommitteepresseditssuit,requestingatemporaryrestraining

order “requiring the Secretary of State to continue the implementation of

ranked-choice voting for the June 12, 2018 primary election.”8 Comm. for

Ranked-ChoiceVoting,AUGSC-CV-2018-24,at9. TheSenatedidnotmove to

interveneinthelitigationcommencedbytheCommittee.

[¶12] The court (Murphy, J.), recognizing the urgency of the matter,

conducted a hearing on the afternoon of March 29, 2018, and entered a

thoroughorderdatedApril3,2018,towhichthepartiesagreed,addressingand

resolvingthestatutoryconflictandrequiringtheSecretaryofStateto“continue

implementationof the systemof ranked-choicevoting for the June12,2018

primary election in accordance with 21-AM.R.S. § 1(27-C) and 21-AM.R.S.

§723-A.”9Comm.forRanked-ChoiceVoting,AUGSC-CV-2018-24,at13-14.No

8 Meanwhile, the Secretary of State posted draft rules detailing the procedures for the

administration of elections using ranked-choice voting. Department of the Secretary of State,Proposed Rules Governing the Administration of ElectionsDetermined byRanked-Choice Voting(Mar. 28, 2018), http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming/pdf/250rcv.pdf; see P.L.2017,ch.316,§10(effectiveFeb.5,2018)(tobecodifiedat21-AM.R.S.§723-A(5-A)).

9Inparticular,thecourtconcludedthattheCommitteehadmetitsburdentoestablishalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsofitsclaimthattheintentofthecitizensinenactingtheranked-choicevotingstatute was to apply ranked-choice voting to the primary elections, notwithstanding otherpreexisting statutory language to the contrary. Comm. forRanked-ChoiceVoting v. Sec’y of State,AUGSC-CV-2018-24,at11-13(Me.Super.Ct.,KennebecCty.,Apr.3,2018);seeIngrahamv.Univ.ofMe.atOrono,441A.2d691,693(Me.1982)(settingoutthecriteriaforobtaininginjunctiverelief).

9

appealfromthatorderhasbeentaken,andthepartiestothatproceedinghave

indicatedthatnoappealwillbepursued.

[¶13] On the same day that the Superior Court declared that

ranked-choicevotingwouldbeapplicabletotheprimaryelections,theMaine

Senate filed a five-count complaint against the Secretary of State seeking

declaratoryandinjunctiverelieftohalttheimplementationofranked-choice

votingintheprimaryelections.Thepartiesagreedtoastipulatedrecord,and,

byorderdatedApril11,2018,theSuperiorCourtreportedtous,pursuantto

M.R.App.P.24(a),thefollowingquestions.

1. Has the Senate proven, on the Stipulated Record appendedhereto, that the Secretary of State’s commitment orexpenditure of funds for the purpose of implementingranked-choice voting in the June 12, 2018 primary electionconstitutes a violation of the Legislature’s appropriationauthority or the Separation of Powers clause in the MaineConstitution, Article III, § 2,where the appropriation for theSecretaryofStateinthebiennialbudgetlaw(P.L.2017,c.284)doesnotcontainlanguageexplicitlyreferencingranked-choicevoting and the enactment of P.L. 2017, c. 316 was partiallysuspendedbyaPeople’sVetoPetition?

2. Has the Senate proven, on the Stipulated Record appended

hereto, that the current statutory framework, includingwithout limitation 21-A M.R.S. § 723-A, does not providesufficientauthorityfortheSecretaryofStatetoarrangefortheretrievalandtransportofballotscastbyvotersattheJune12,2018primaryelectionfrommunicipalitiestoacentrallocationin order to determine the winners of the election byranked-choicevoting?

10

3. Has the Senate proven, on the Stipulated Record appended

hereto, that the current statutory framework, includingwithout limitation 21-AM.R.S §§ 1(27-C), 1(35-A), 339, 695,722(1),723(1), someofwhicharesuspendedby the filingofthe People’s Veto Petition pursuant to the Constitution ofMaine,art.IV,pt.3,§17,prohibitsdeterminingthewinnersoftheJune12,2018primaryelectionbyranked-choicevoting?

4.HastheSenateshownthatithasstandingtobringanyandallofthelegalclaimssetforthinitsComplaint?

5.HastheSenateshownthatanyorallofthelegalclaimssetforthin the Senate’s Complaint are justiciable under the politicalquestiondoctrine?

6.HastheSenateshownthatanyorallofthelegalclaimssetforthinitscomplaintareripeforadjudication?

7. HastheSenateidentifiedacauseofactionforanyofthelegalclaimssetforthinitsComplaint?

II.DISCUSSION

A. ReportedQuestions

[¶14]Webeginbyaddressingthevehiclebywhichthismatterreaches

us—aReportpursuanttoM.R.App.P.24(a).10Becausetherehasbeennotrial

10MaineRuleofAppellateProcedure24(a)provides,

(a)ReportbyAgreementof ImportantorDoubtfulQuestions. When thetrial court is of the opinion that a question of law presented to it is of sufficientimportanceordoubttojustifyareporttotheLawCourtfordetermination,itmaysoreportwhen:(1)allpartiesappearingagreetothereport;

11

court adjudication of facts or other matters ordinarily resolved by the trial

court,wedonotautomaticallyacceptsuchareport.ConservatorshipofEmma,

2017ME 1, ¶7, 153 A.3d 102. “When the trial court reports questions for

review, we independently determine whether acceptance of the report is

consistentwithourbasicfunctionasanappellatecourtorwouldimproperly

placeusintheroleofanadvisoryboard”duetothelackofafinaltrialcourt

judgmenttoreview. Id. (quotationmarksomitted). Althoughweemphasize

thattheacceptanceofareportedquestionistheexception,nottherule,seeid.,

in these unusual circumstances, we do accept the Report pursuant to

Rule24(a).

B. Question3

[¶15] We address Question 3 first. The Senate asks whether the

contradictionbetweentheapplicationofranked-choicevotingtotheprimary

elections delineated in 21-AM.R.S. § 1(27-C) and the plurality provision for

(2)thereisagreementastoallfactsmaterialtotheappeal;and

(3)thedecisionthereonwould,inatleastonealternative,finallydisposeoftheaction.

12

primaryelectionsdescribedin21-AM.R.S.§723(1)preventstheSecretaryof

Statefromimplementingranked-choicevotingintheJune12,2018,primary.

[¶16] The Senate’s argument onQuestion 3 addresses the very issue

decided by the Superior Court in Committee for Ranked-Choice Voting v.

Secretaryof State,AUGSC-CV-2018-24 (Me. Super.Ct.,KennebecCty.,Apr. 3,

2018).Hadthepartiesinthiscasebeenabletofullyaddresstheissueofthe

Senate’s decision not to seek intervention in Committee for Ranked-Choice

Voting, it is possible that we would have determined that the Senate was

precludedfromadvancingthesameargumentnow.See,e.g.,Taylorv.Sturgell,

553 U.S. 880, 893-95 (2008) (identifying six circumstances in which the

assertion of collateral estoppel is permitted against a nonparty under the

federal common law). We have never addressed the issue of nonparty

preclusioninthesecircumstances,however,andwedonottakethisoccasion

toopineonitnow.Accordingly,weaddressthemeritsofQuestion3.

[¶17] Fordecades,Maine’selection lawshaveexplicitlyprovided that

thewinnerofaprimaryelectionisdeterminedbyapluralityofthevotes.See

21-A M.R.S. §723(1); P.L. 1985, ch. 161, § 6 (effective Sept. 19, 1985).11

11 Public Law1985, ch. 161, repealed the prior title 21M.R.S.A, generally governing election

practices,andreplacedtitle21withtitle21-A,whichhassincegovernedelectionlaws.P.L.1985,ch.161,§§5-6(effectiveSept.19,1985).

13

Section723(1)provides,inpertinentpart,“[i]naprimaryelection,theperson

whoreceivesapluralityofthevotescastfornomination. . .isnominatedfor

thatoffice.”21-AM.R.S.§723(1).WhentheRCVAwasenactedbythecitizens’

initiativein2016, itaddressedtheapplicationofranked-choicevotingtothe

primary elections through the enactment of 21-A M.R.S. § 1(27-C), which

declared that an office elected by ranked-choice voting “includes any

nominationsbyprimaryelectiontosuchoffices.” L.D.1557,§1. TheRCVA,

however, contained no reference to or amendment of section 723(1), thus

creatingadirectconflictintheapplicablestatutoryprovisions.

[¶18] When theRCVAwas addressed by the Legislature in 2017, the

referenceinsection723(1)topluralityvotingforprimaryelectionswasleftin

placeuntilDecember1,2021. P.L.2017,ch.316,§6. Atthesametime,the

formatof21-AM.R.S.§1(27-C)wasamendedsothat,uponalatereffectivedate,

primaryelectionswouldproceedasfollows:

27-C. Elections determined by ranked-choice voting.“Electionsdeterminedbyranked-choicevoting”means:

A.PrimaryelectionsfortheofficesofUnitedStatesSenator,United States Representative to Congress, Governor, StateSenatorandStateRepresentative.

P.L.2017,ch.316,§1.

14

[¶19]Asaresultofthepeople’sveto,thechangestosection723(1)that

deferred rank-choice voting in primary elections for several years were

suspended,thusremovinganytemporal impedimenttotheoriginalplurality

languageofsection723(1).SeeMe.Const.art.IV,pt.3,§17(2).Separately,the

requirementof ranked-choicevoting in theprimaryelections establishedby

21-AM.R.S. §1(27-C) became immediately effective andwould apply to the

June2018primaryelections. Becausedeterminingthewinnerofanelection

throughpluralityvotingisinconsistentwithdeterminingthewinnerthrougha

ranked-choice voting process, see Opinion of the Justices, 2017 ME 100,

¶¶64-69,162A.3d188,12thetwostatutesareinconflict.

[¶20] The legal issue presented by the conflict presents an age-old

question—which of two conflicting provisions applies? See, e.g. Knight v.

Aroostook River R.R. Co., 67 Me. 291, 293 (1877).13 When a more recent

12WeacknowledgethatanOpinionoftheJusticesisadvisoryonly,anditdoesnotprovidebinding

precedent.Me.Const.art.VI,§3;OpinionoftheJustices,2017ME100,¶9,162A.3d188.Throughthis opinion, we adopt the referenced reasoning in full without reciting the analysis verbatim.Opinionof the Justices, 2017ME100,¶¶64-69, 162A.3d188 (advising that “theRanked-ChoiceVotingActisindirectcontradictiontothepluralityrequirementsoftheMaineConstitution”).13 QuotingaMassachusettscase,Commonwealthv.Kelliher,94Mass.(12Allen)480,481(1866),

withapproval,wesaidinKnightv.AroostookRiverRailroadCo.,67Me.291,293(1877),

[W]heneverastatuteispassedwhichembracesalltheprovisionsofpreviousstatuteson the same subject, the new statute operates as a repeal of all antecedentenactments. Thiswell settled rule of interpretation is founded on the reasonableinferencethatthelegislaturecannotbesupposedtohaveintendedthatthereshouldbetwodistinctenactmentsembracingthesamesubjectmatterinforceatthesame

15

amendment to aMaine statutedirectly conflictswith anolderprovision,we

must, as always, determine the intent of the Legislature, and the question

becomeswhethertheolderprovisionhasbeenrepealed“byimplication.”Blair

v.StateTaxAssessor,485A.2d957,959(Me.1984).Weapplythismethodof

statutoryconstruction

whenalaterenactmentencompassestheentiresubjectmatterofan earlier act, or when a later statute is inconsistent with orrepugnanttoanearlierstatute.Whenalaterstatutedoesnotcovertheearlieractinitsentirety,butisinconsistentwithonlysomeofitsprovisions,a repealby implicationoccurs to theextentoftheconflict.

Id.(citationsomitted).

[¶21] In the matter before us, there is both a direct conflict in the

statutorilyprovidedmethodofvotinginMaineprimaryelectionsandaclarity

ofpurposeregarding themostrecentenactment.14 SeeLewistonFirefighters

Assoc.v.CityofLewiston,354A.2d154,159-160(Me.1976);seealsoOpinionof

theJustices,311A.2d103,108(Me.1973).

time,andthatthenewstatute,beingthemostrecentexpressionofthelegislativewill,mustbedeemedasubstituteforpreviousenactments,andtheonlyonewhichistoberegardedashavingtheforceoflaw.

14 Although we would not apply concepts of implicit repeal in doubtful cases, see LewistonFirefightersAssoc.v.CityofLewiston,354A.2d154,159(Me.1976),thereisnodoubtaboutthedirectconflictinthiscase.

16

[¶22]Theconsistentandexplicitpurposeofthecitizens’initiativeand

the people’s veto has been to transition Maine elections to a system of

ranked-choicevoting. Thewisdomof ranked-choicevoting isnotbeforeus.

Our role is todetermineandeffectuate the intentof the legislationunless it

conflictswiththeMaineConstitutionortheUnitedStatesConstitution.Neither

Constitutionis implicatedbythequestionspresentedhere,butthestatutory

conflictisclear.Despitetheexistingreferencetopluralityvotingintheprimary

electionsinsection723(1),boththeRCVAasfirstenactedbythepeoplein2016

and the amendments to ranked-choice primary voting enacted by the

Legislature in the Implementation Act in 2017 and immediately effectuated

through the people’s veto expressly provide for primary elections to be

governedbyranked-choicevoting.L.D.1557,§1;P.L.2017,ch.316,§1.

[¶23]Itisevidentthattheranked-choiceprimaryprovisionoftheRCVA,

21-AM.R.S.§1(27-C),enactedbythepeoplethroughtheinitiativeprocessand

amended only in format by the Legislature in the Implementation Act, is

“repugnant” in substance to the plurality provision in 21-AM.R.S. § 723(1).

LewistonFirefightersAssoc.,354A.2dat160.Thus,aswehaveheld,“thenew

statute,beingthemostrecentexpressionofthelegislativewill,mustbedeemed

17

a substitute for previous enactments.” Knight, 67 Me. at 293 (quoted with

approvalinLewistonFirefightersAssoc.,354A.2dat160).

[¶24] Accordingly, we conclude that the “plurality” provision of

21-AM.R.S.§723(1)hasbeenimplicitlyrepealedbythemostrecentprovision

oflawaddressingtheranked-choicevotingmethodtobeemployedintheJune

primaryelections,21-AM.R.S.§1(27-C).15Pursuantto21-AM.R.S§1(27-C),

ranked-choice voting must be applied to the primary elections on June 12,

2018.

C. Question1

[¶25] Through Question 1, the Senate seeks a declaration that the

SecretaryofStatelacksconstitutionalauthoritytocommitandexpendpublic

monies for the implementationof ranked-choicevoting in the absenceof an

explicitly targeted appropriation by the Legislature. Assuming without

decidingthattheSenatehasstandingtoassertsuchaclaim,weconcludethat

Question1isnotjusticiable.

[¶26] We have long recognized a host of considerations according to

whichwewilldeclinetoexercisejurisdiction;werefertothisasthe“universal

rule”ofjusticiability.OpinionoftheJustices,2017ME100,¶15,162A.3d188

15 This determination is consistentwith the decision of the Superior Court inCommittee for

Ranked-ChoiceVoting,AUGSC-CV-2018-24,at11-13.

18

(quotationmarksomitted).Justiciabilityregards“thefitnessoftheissuesfor

judicialdecision.” NewEnglandTel.&Tel.Co.v.Pub.Utils.Comm’n,448A.2d

272,302(Me.1982)(quotationmarksomitted).

[¶27]Inthecontextofthematteratbar,therequirementofjusticiability

demands thatour authority todecideamatter is limitedby thatmostbasic

tenet of our governmental structure—the constitutionally-mandated

separationofpowers.SeeMe.Const.art.III,§2;Bouchardv.Dep’tofPub.Safety,

2015ME50, ¶10,115A.3d92. TheMaineConstitution requiresboth that

“[t]hepowersofthisgovernmentshallbedividedinto3distinct[Branches],the

legislative,executiveandjudicial”andthat“[n]opersonorpersons,belonging

tooneofthese[Branches],shallexerciseanyofthepowersproperlybelonging

to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or

permitted.”Me.Const.art.III,§§1-2;seeOpinionoftheJustices,2017ME100,

¶13,162A.3d188.

[¶28] Like the federal courts, “our constitutional structure does not

requirethattheJudicialBranchshrinkfromaconfrontationwiththeothertwo

coequal branches.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 833 (1997) (Souter, J.,

concurring) (alterations omitted) (quotationmarks omitted). Nevertheless,

therearesomemattersinwhichwewillexercisejudicialrestraintbyrefusing

19

toadjudicatematterswheretheadjudication“wouldinvolveanencroachment

upon theexecutiveor legislativepowers.” Wrightv.Dep’tofDef.&Veterans

Servs.,623A.2d1283,1285(Me.1993)(quotationmarksomitted);seeTurner

v.Safley,482U.S.78,85(1987)(“[S]eparationofpowersconcernscounsela

policy of judicial restraint.”), superseded by statute, Religious Freedom

RestorationAct,Pub.L.No.103-141,107Stat.1488.

[¶29]RegardingQuestion1,theSenatearguesthatthegeneralallocation

offundingtotheSecretaryofStatecannotbeutilizedbytheSecretaryofState

absentanexplicitly-descriptiveallocationofappropriatedfundstoparticular

actions related to voting and elections. The Senate has provided neither a

constitutionalbasisforthisargumentnorastatutoryfoundationforitsclaim

torestricttheauthorityoftheSecretaryofState.

[¶30] Without pointing to a live, current constitutional violation, the

SenateaskstheCourttoinvolveitselfintheSecretaryofState’sexpenditureof

already-appropriatedfunds.Theseparationofpowersdoctrineprecludesus

fromentertainingthisrequestbytheSenatefortheCourttoassumeanyrolein

supervising the legislatively delegated tasks of the Secretary of State. See

generally,21-AM.R.S.§§21,601–609(2017). AstheUnitedStatesSupreme

Courthas announced, courtswill not involve themselves in the “amorphous

20

generalsupervisionoftheoperationsofgovernment.”Raines,521U.S.at829.

Question1isnotjusticiable.

D. Question2

[¶31] Regarding Question 2, the Senate challenges the Secretary of

State’s authority, in the absence of additional explicit legislative action, to

arrangeforthesecurity,possession,andtransportationofballotsinaranked-

choice voting election. As with Question 1, we are not persuaded by the

suggestion that the logistics of implementing ranked-choice voting create a

constitutional crisis sufficient for us to ignore the separation of powers

problemsinherentinthesecircumstances.Question2regardstheepitomeof

governmentalactioninwhichthecourtslackauthoritytomeddlepursuantto

theseparationofpowersdoctrine.Question2isnotjusticiable.

E. Questions4through7

[¶32] Theremainingquestionshavebeenresolvedbyouranswers to

Questions1,2,and3andarethereforemoot.

III.CONCLUSION

[¶33]WehaveacceptedtheReportofQuestionsfromtheSuperiorCourt

pursuant to M.R. App. P. 24(a). As to Question 3, we conclude that

21

ranked-choicevotingisthelawofMainewithregardtotheprimaryelections

onJune12,2018,notwithstandinganycontradictionby21-AM.R.S.§723(1).

[¶34] We have also determined that the courts of Maine will not

adjudicate either of the remaining substantive questions presented by the

Report—Questions1 and 2. Thesequestions ask us to address the internal

fundingandadministrativedecisionsoftheOfficeoftheSecretaryofStateand

seektheCourt’sinterventionintotheprospectivelogisticalarrangementsfor

securing,possessing,andtransportingtheballotsduringtheprimaryelections

tobeheldonJune12,2018.Weconcludethatthesequestions,whichreflect

Counts1through4oftheSenate’scomplaint,cannotbeadjudicatedbecause

theyarequintessentiallynonjusticiable.

[¶35]Finally,theneedtoanswerQuestions4,5,6,and7,whichaddress

justiciability,isobviatedbyouranswerstoQuestions1,2,and3. Theissues

raised in those four questions are moot. Thus, the matters raised by the

Senate’s complaint, distilled to the sevenquestionspresentedhere, are fully

resolvedbyouranswers.

22

Theentryis:

Report accepted. Remanded to the SuperiorCourt for entry of judgment on Count 5(Question3)declaringthatranked-choicevotingshallbeemployedintheJune12,2018,primaryelection,anddismissingasnonjusticiableCounts1,2,3,and4(Questions1and2).Mandatetoissueforthwith.

TimothyC.Woodcock,Esq.(orally),RyanP.Dumais,Esq.,andKadyS.Huff,Esq.,EatonPeabody,Bangor,fortheMaineStateSenatePhyllisGardiner,Esq.(orally),andThomasA.Knowlton,Esq.,OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral,Augusta,fortheSecretaryofStateJamesG.Monteleone,Esq.(orally),andMichaelR.Bosse,Esq.,BernsteinShur,Portland,fortheCommitteeforRanked-ChoiceVoting,LucasSt.Clair,MarkEves,DianeRussell,BetsySweet,andBenChipmanTimothyR.Shannon,Esq.,RachelM.Wertheimer,Esq.,JonathanDunitz,Esq.,MarieM.Mueller,Esq.,andSamuelBaldwin,Esq.,VerrillDana,LLP,Portland,foramicusTheLeagueofWomenVotersofMaineKennebecCountySuperiorCourtdocketnumberCV-2018-51FORCLERKREFERENCEONLY