I believe that the folks who write or execute our laws are obliged to obey “the supreme law of the land” – and the state. Even the inconvenient ones.
I’m not alone. Four decades ago, a unanimous Maine Supreme Judicial Court opined: “It would conflict with the basic theory of American government if two branches of government, the legislative and the executive, by acting in concert were able, unchecked, to frustrate the mandates of the state constitution.”
Fast forward to 2023, when a single political party has controlled those two branches of government with such confidence that minority-party legislators are routinely told that they’re not needed. Constitutional checks and balances are castigated as frustrating the “will of the majority” and legislative debate has devolved into ultimatums issued behind closed doors fronted by virtuous posturing.
With three months left in the fiscal year, the minority party asked that the record-sized budget be cut to lower the income tax on the bottom tax bracket to 4.5%. The majority leaders concluded there was no tolerable budget compromise they could offer. Instead, Senate President Troy Jackson and Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross told their party members that, to save the governor’s budget, they “had to do” what came next.
On March 30, the majority party in both chambers voted to approve their “minimal” budget and passed a joint order to carry over unfinished business to the next session. Then came the ceremonies of officially notifying each other, and the governor, that their work was done. Ad hoc committees trooped through the State House halls, delivering legal declarations. Finally, the majority party in both chambers voted to adjourn and the First Regular Session of the 131st Legislature became legislative history in time for the budget to become law before the fiscal year ends.
The most important vote was introduced by Speaker Talbot Ross: polling the legislators for consent to reconvene in a special session the following week. They needed that consent because, 50 years ago, an amendment to the state Constitution gave the president and the speaker authority to call the Legislature back. As a safeguard against calling special sessions on a whim, a majority of legislators from both parties must consent. So, after officially declaring their work done but before actually adjourning, the presiding officers tried to get permission to keep working without interruption.
They only got the consent of one party, with the other party refusing to endorse the deceit. Before the Senate voted to adjourn, President Jackson announced the results – that the members of the Legislature did not consent to reconvene the next week.
Less than 15 hours later, Gov. Janet Mills – who explicitly saw no need to reconvene a hastily adjourned Legislature in 2020 – officially declared that the public health of the state was in peril and ordered the Legislature to immediately reconvene – on the exact same date they had explicitly not consented to.
The Legislature’s leaders eagerly surrendered. The full legislative calendar was reinstated. The speaker, who had admonished the minority the night before that the Legislature “is within its bounds to adjourn as it sees fit” didn’t even offer a verbal token of resistance before submissively gaveling an unconsenting House into session.
Ordinary citizens stepped forward to defend the Constitution, by filing a complaint that this special session was unconstitutionally called. We have committed to arguing our case on the constitutional merits, and asked the governor and presiding officers to do the same. Instead, the Attorney General’s Office immediately asked the court to dismiss our case while the legislative leadership continued the session, ignoring the risk all their work could be nullified as constitutionally illegitimate.
We want to know if the court still believes what it said four decades ago. Ultimately, the people of this state will have to demand political leaders who will lead with integrity and honor.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
