Could filing a Maine voter initiative stop a pending utility commission order on measured telephone service?

Plain-English summary

In January 1986, Maine Attorney General James Tierney concluded that filing a voter initiative petition would not stop an outstanding Public Utilities Commission order directing New England Telephone and Telegraph Company to implement local measured telephone service in certain areas. The filing would have had no effect on the order even if it occurred before the order's February effective date.

The opinion drew two distinctions. First, the constitutional initiative procedure supplied a way for citizens to propose legislation, but the filing itself did not alter existing law. Second, Maine's “people's veto” provision could suspend certain newly passed laws during a specified period; the pending order was quasi-judicial action by an agency, not a law enacted by the Legislature. The Attorney General said that even a petition filed during the people's-veto period would not suspend the Commission's order.

The opinion identified emergency legislation enacted before the order's effective date as the legislative route to suspend it. Such legislation required a two-thirds vote of each house. The Attorney General also noted the possibility of persuading the Commission itself to reverse its action. Those observations described the options he saw at the time; the letter did not say either event would occur.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. 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: Did filing the telephone-service initiative pause the Commission's order?
A: No. The Attorney General said filing an initiative petition did not affect existing law or the effectiveness of the pending agency order.

Q: Why did the people's veto not apply to the telephone order?
A: The opinion said the people's veto concerned certain legislation, while the telephone order was an action of the Public Utilities Commission directed at a particular company.

Q: Could the Legislature have stopped the order before it took effect?
A: The opinion identified emergency legislation enacted before the February 1986 effective date as the legislative route and said it required a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house.

Q: Could the Commission itself change its order?
A: The Attorney General mentioned persuading the Commission informally to reverse its action as another possibility, without predicting that it would.

Background and statutory framework

Representative Harry Vose asked about a petition filed under Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 of the Maine Constitution and a Commission order due to take effect on February 15, 1986. The opinion distinguished that initiative procedure from Article IV, Part 3, Section 17's people's veto. It further distinguished legislation from the Commission's quasi-judicial order. The Attorney General concluded that petition filing, under either theory, would not prevent the order from taking effect.

Citations and references

• Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 of the Maine Constitution: initiative petition procedure discussed in the letter.
• Article IV, Part 3, Section 17: people's-veto provision distinguished by the opinion.
• Article IV, Part 3, Section 16: emergency legislation provision the opinion identified as a route to suspend the order.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1986/ag_19860115a.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

JAMES E. TJER'[Y
86-2
ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE Of M4INE

DEPARTME:"iT OF THE ATTOR:"iEY GE:"iERAL STATE HOLSE STATIO:"i 6
Al;GUSTA, MAJ:\E 04333

January 15, 1986

Honorable Harry L. Vose
Chairman, Joint Standing Committee on Utilities
House of Repr~sentatives
State House Station #2
Augusta, Maine 04333

Dear Representative Vose:

I am writing in response to your recent question concerning the effect of the filing of an initiative petition, pursuant to Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 of the Maine Constitution, on an outstanding order of the Maine Public Utilities Commission directing that local measured telephone service be implemented by the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company in certain areas of the State on February 15, 1986. For the reasons which follow, it is the Opinion of this Department that the filing of such a petition, even prior to the effective date of the Commission's order, would have no bearing on its effectiveness.

Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 of the Maine Constitution provides that persons seeking to enact, amend or repeal legislation may file petitions to that effect, signed by not less than 10 percent of the total vote for Governor cast in the preceding gubernatorial election, requesting that the Legislature enact such legislation. In the case of a second regular session of the Legislature, such petitions must be filed on or before the 20th day after the convening of the session. If the Legislature does not enact the initiated bill as proposed, the Constitution provides that the measure shall be submitted to the electorate.

Noticeably absent from this constitutional procedure for the enactment of legislation is any provision concerning the effect of filing of initiative petitions on existing law. On its face, it is quite clear that the filing of such petitions

g rnse·
· .. ....
. :·,·,-r,'
......
-·: :·:-:······. i
 -2- has no effect upon existing law. While Article IV, Part 3, Section 17, the so-called "people's veto" provision, specifies that the filing of a petition during the period of 90 days following the recess of any session of the Legislature prevents the effectiveness of any non-emergency law passed by that session until such law is ratified by a majority of the electorate at a state-wide election, that provision has no effect on laws in effect as a result of previous legislative action. Since the question which you pose does not arise during such a 90-day period, the "people's veto" provisions of the Maine Constitution do not apply.

Beyond this, of course, the order which the initiative petition seeks to affect is not legislation at all, but the quasi-judicial action of a state agency, the Public Utilities Commission, with regard to a particular private entity, a telephone company. Thus, even if the petition at issue here were to have been filed during the 90-day period following the recess of a session of the Legislature, it would be ineffective to prevent the entry into force of such an order, since the order is not one which was made by the Legislature. For this additional reason, therefore, the filing of the petition would have no bearing on the effectiveness of the orde~--

f- The only way for tpe effectiveness of the Commission's order to be suspended through the legislative process would be for the Legislature itself to pass emergency legislation prior to the February 15, 1986 effective date, pursuant to Article IV, Part 3, Section 16 of the Maine Constitution. Such action, of course, requires a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each House. There is no other constitutional mechanism available either to the Legislature or the citizens of the State to prevent the entry into force of the Commission's order. The only available mechanism is the passage of emergency legislation, unless, of course, the Commission can be persuaded informally to reverse its action.

I hope the foregoing is of assistance to you. Please feel free to reinquire if further clarification is necessary.

1 ✓-m) erely ~-~---
~t~ ;__ •
( -"----------.

-J'~ES E. TIERNEY
t --
(L
VAttorney General

JET-ec cc: Peter A. Bradford, Chairman
Public Utilities Commission