Did Maine's 1986 statutory-errors bill restore a local filing requirement for school-construction referenda?

Plain-English summary

Maine enacted two amendments affecting the school-construction referendum law during the same legislative session. The first expressly exempted those referenda from a separate Title 30 filing requirement. A later statutory-errors bill repealed and reenacted the same subsection to integrate two older, nonconflicting changes.

The Education Commissioner asked whether the later bill accidentally erased the new filing exemption. Attorney General James Tierney concluded that it did not.

The errors bill specified that it was reenacting the subsection as amended by two named 1985 laws. It did not name the later exemption in P.L. 1985, c. 570. That wording confirmed that lawmakers intended only to combine the two earlier changes, not repeal the separate referendum amendment.

The opinion also applied the rule that separate amendments to the same statute should each receive legal effect when they are not actually inconsistent. The school-construction referendum exemption from 30 M.R.S.A. § 2061(4) therefore remained effective.

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.

Who this opinion addressed in 1986

Education Department officials and school boards

The later technical-corrections law did not restore the local filing requirement for the covered school-construction votes.

Municipal clerks and referendum administrators

The exemption enacted in P.L. 1985, c. 570 continued to operate alongside the other amendments to 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15904(1).

Legislative attorneys

The opinion used the errors bill's precise reference to named prior amendments as evidence of limited intent and gave effect to all compatible enactments.

Common questions

Q: Did the errors bill repeal and reenact the subsection?
A: Yes, but it expressly referred to only two earlier amendments that it was meant to integrate.

Q: Why did the separate filing exemption survive?
A: It did not conflict with the integrated amendments, and the later bill's wording negated an intent to repeal it.

Q: Which filing rule remained inapplicable?
A: The opinion preserved the exemption from 30 M.R.S.A. § 2061(4) for referenda covered by the school-construction statute.

Background and statutory framework

P.L. 1985, c. 570 amended 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15904(1) to create the referendum filing exemption. P.L. 1985, c. 737, § 46 later integrated changes previously enacted in chapters 161 and 248.

The opinion cited Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen and State v. London for giving effect to separate amendments when no inconsistency or repugnancy existed.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15904(1)
• 30 M.R.S.A. § 2061(4)
• P.L. 1985, c. 570
• P.L. 1985, c. 737, § 46

Cases:

• Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen, 461 A.2d 478, 481 (Me. 1983)
• State v. London, 156 Me. 123, 127, 162 A.2d 150, 153 (1960)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1986/ag_19860903.pdf

Original opinion text

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

86-17
JAMES E. TIERNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE HOUSE STATION 6
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333

September 3, 1986

Richard w. Redmond, Commissioner
Department of Educational and Cultural Services State House Station #23
Augusta, Maine 04333

Dear Commissioner Redmond:

You have requested the opinion of this office with respect to the legal effect of the two amendments of 20-A M.R.S.A~ § 15904(1) enacted during the Second Regular Session of the 112th Legislature. First, in emergency legislation directed exclusively to the procedures for local referendum votes on ( school construction, the Legislature amended the statute to provide an express exception from a filing requirement in Title 30 that would otherwise apply. P.L. 1985, ~- 570, § 1, effective March 6, 1986. Subsequently, in a piece of legislation correcting errors and inconsistencies in the statutes as they existed at the beginning of the Second Regular Session, the same subsection was repealed and reenacted.· P.L.
1985, c. 737, § 46, effective April 18, 1986. The sole purpose of the latter amendment was to integrate, in one enactment, two changes in the language of the subsection made during the First Regular Session in 1985 which, although not inconsistent, failed to take account of one another. See P.L. 1985, c. 161, § 4 and c. 248, § 4.

The question presented by your inquiry is whether this latter amendment must be viewed as repealing the former, thereby reinstating the filing requirement which that amendment removed. In the view of this office, no such effect may be read into the Errors bill amendment. The limited intention of that provision is definitively confirmed by its language, which repeals§ 15904(1) "as amended by P.L. 1985, c. 161, § 4, and c. 248, § 4." Thus, in enacting the Errors bill, the 112th Legislature expressly negated any intention to repeal the final clause added to the school construction referendum statute by P. L. _19 8 5, c. 5 7 0. -
C
 1

,,-''
-2-

(
This office has consistently advised that legal effect
should be given to separate amendments of the same statutory provision where no actual inconsistency or repugnancy exists between the two amendments. Op.Me.Att'y Gen., December 19, 1975. The Law Court has repeatedly embraced the same principle. Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen, 461 A.2d 478, 481 (Me. 1983); State v. London, 156 Me. 123, 127, 162 A.2d 150, 153 (1960). Thus, legal effect should be given to the final clause of 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15904(1), as enacted by P.L. 1985, c. 570, exempting referenda covered therein from the filing requirement contained in 30 M.R.S.A. § 2061(4).

I hope the foregoing answers your question.
ely,

~AMES E. TIERNEY ptorney General
JET/EC

C

C