Charter Commission Discretion Confirmed

Date Posted: Wednesday, September 11, 2024
Posted In: Legal Notes, Legal Notes - Featured

In Good v. Town of Bar Harbor, 2024 ME 48, Maine’s Supreme Court addressed a municipal charter commission’s discretion to decide how to present its recommendations to voters.

Maine law states that a charter commission tasked with revising a municipal charter may recommend, in its final report, that the present charter continue in force with only minor modifications, and those modifications may be submitted to the voters in as many separate questions as the commission finds practicable. See 30-A M.R.S. § 2105(1)(A).

In 2018, Bar Harbor residents voted to establish a charter commission, and in 2020, the Commission issued its report. The Commission determined that 19 discrete changes were necessary within the current structure of the charter, and that these were “minor modifications” rather than a comprehensive charter revision. As the Commission recommended, the Town Council presented the proposed changes to Bar Harbor voters in nine separate ballot questions.

A group of citizens filed suit in late 2020 arguing that the charter changes approved by voters (eight of the proposed nine) were invalid because they were not “minor modifications” and should instead have been presented to voters as one ballot question seeking an “all or nothing” vote on the entire slate of changes. On appeal, the Maine Law Court upheld the Town’s decision to present the changes in several separate ballot questions.

The Good decision is significant because it provides new and helpful guidance on how a charter commission may present proposed charter changes to voters. The Court explained that when a charter commission develops changes that are sufficiently narrow in effect to be considered separately by voters “without affecting the functionality of the charter as a whole,” those changes constitute “minor modifications” that may be broken into separate questions. (This is similar to the way charter “amendments” are presented to voters). In contrast, when a proposed revision is akin to a wholesale rewriting of the charter and involves interdependent changes that cannot be considered piecemeal without rendering the charter unworkable or internally inconsistent, those proposed changes must be presented to voters as a “package” in a single ballot question.

The Court also relied on the legislative history of Maine’s Home Rule Act, finding it intended to allow municipalities to give voters more choices than a single ballot question would allow when multiple or minor charter changes are involved. According to the Court, thwarting the Bar Harbor Charter Commission’s decision in this situation would not accomplish the statute’s purpose.

MMA Legal Services participated in the appeal arguing in support of the Town through an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief prepared by Staff Attorney Jen Thompson.

Filing “friend of the court” briefs is one of the services MMA’s Legal Services Program provides free of charge to our members. If your municipality is involved in appellate litigation of statewide significance to municipalities, we invite you to contact us to discuss this form of assistance. (By S.F.P.)