In re Opinion of the Justices

• Decision Date: 12 August 1915
• Parties: In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

95 A. 869

In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.

INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 12, 1915.

Answers to questions propounded to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court by the Governor.

State of Maine.

Executive Department.

Augusta, Me., August 12, 1915.

To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court:

Under and by virtue of the authority conferred upon the Governor by the Constitution of Maine (article 6, § 3), and being advised and believing that the questions of law are important, and that it is upon a solemn occasion, I, Oakley C. Curtis, Governor of Maine, respectfully submit the following statement of facts and questions, and ask the opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court thereon:

Statement.

The Legislature of 1915 passed an act entitled "An act to divide the town of Bristol and to incorporate the town of South Bristol," which act appears in the Acts and Resolves of 1915 as chapter 133 of the Private and Special Laws of Maine. This act was approved by the Governor on the 26th day of March, 1915.

The Legislature adjourned on April 3, 1915. Within 90 days of the date of said adjournment certain petitions intended to come within the provisions of article 4 of the Constitution of Maine as amended by the amendment adopted September 14, 1908, known as the Initiative and Referendum Amendment, were filed in the office of the Secretary of State, addressed to the Governor, requesting that the act hereinbefore referred to be referred to the people of Maine to be voted on.

These petitions bore the names of more than 10,000 petitioners, to wit, 10,496.

A copy of each sheet composing said petitions as filed in the Secretary of State's office, bearing the names of signing petitioners, is attached hereto and made a part thereof.

The form of said petition, including the verification and jurat, is not specifically prescribed by law.

Certain objections have been made to the sufficiency of certain of said petitions, and in order that I may determine whether or not to count certain of said signatures to said petitions so filed in the Secretary of State's office, and to refer to the people of Maine to be voted on the act in question, I desire your opinion as to the sufficiency of certain of said petitions and whether or not the names thereon should be counted in determining that 10,000 electors have petitioned in accordance with the Constitution.

Question 1.

(A) Should names be counted if attached to petitions, where the town clerk has certified that the names of the petitioners appear on the voting list of his city, town, or plantation as qualified to vote for Governor, but the signatures to which petitions are not verified as to authenticity by the oath of any petitioner certified thereon?

(B) Such petitions being so filed in the Secretary of State's office within the 90 days, can they, after the 90 days prescribed in the Constitution has expired, be verified as to authenticity by one of the petitioners, so as to entitle them to be counted as a part of the required 10,000 signatures?

Question 2.

(A) Certain petitions consisted of two or more sheets pasted together; others with two or more sheets pinned together; others with two or more sheets fastened together by eyelets. On the first sheet the forms mentioned in the statement of fact are properly filled out. On the other sheets said forms are blank. Shall the names on the sheets on which the forms are blank be counted?

(B) In certain cases the whole number of names upon the sheets so fastened together are certified by the town clerk, but only the first sheet bears the verification of a petitioner. In such cases should the names on all the sheets be counted?

(C) If the failure on the part of the town clerk or verifying petitioner to sign the sheets above mentioned, other than the first sheet, would prevent the names on said sheets, other than the first sheet, being counted, can such defect be cured by permitting the town clerk or verifying petitioner to sign said sheets after the expiration of the 90 days heretofore mentioned, and may the Governor receive evidence of the intention of said petitioner and said clerk to sign said sheets, or that in signing the first sheet they regarded the several sheets as constituting one petition, and on receipt of such evidence is the Governor authorized to count said names?

Question 3.

(A) If the verifying petitioner signs the verification on each of the several pages of the petition, but the jurat is executed only on the first page, should names on all of the several sheets be counted?

(B) If the fact that the jurat is filled out on the first sheet of the several sheets attached together, and not filled out on the subsequent sheets, would prevent the names on the subsequent sheets being counted, may such omission to fill out said jurat be remedied after the filing of the petitions and the expiration of the 90 days aforesaid, and may the Governor receive evidence as to the intention of the verifying petitioner and the magistrate executing the jurat that said jurat was to apply to the several sheets, and that they were to be taken as one petition?

Question 4.

(A) In certain cases, where sheets are pasted together as heretofore described, and verified on the first sheet only, the name of the verifying petitioner appears on the subsequent page, but does not appear on the first page as a petitioner. Is such verification sufficient so that the names upon the first page shall be counted?

Question 5.

(A) Should several sheets similar to the copy hereto attached, pinned together, pasted together, or fastened together by eyelets, each bearing signatures, but only one sheet being verified by a petitioner, or one sheet being certified by a clerk, or the jurat filled out on one sheet alone, be deemed one petition, and one verification, one certification, and one jurat be deemed sufficient so that the names on all of the sheets so fastened together should be counted?

(B) Would it affect the counting of names on petitions just described if the certification, verification, and jurat were filled out on the first page or some subsequent page other than the last page?

Question 6.

(A) In certain cases it appears that the verifying petitioner did not sign the petition as a petitioner, which he verifies, but did sign some other petition. In such case shall the names on the petition verified by him be counted?

(B) Would it affect the counting of names on petitions just described if the verifying petitioner, although failing to sign the petition as a petitioner, which he verified, sign a similar petition as a petitioner in the same town or city; such latter petition being properly certified by the town clerk?

Question 7.

(A) In a certain case a petition composed of four sheets pasted together, wherein the names of the petitioners were numbered from 1 to 253, Inclusive, the first three sheets of which are properly certified by the city clerk, he designating the numbers on those sheets of those names which he refused to certify, the verifying petitioner signed the fourth sheet only, and his name appears as a petitioner on the fourth sheet only, being No. 192. On all four sheets a jurat is filled out by a magistrate. On the fourth sheet the certificate of the clerk is filled out, excepting that it is left unsigned. This certificate contains the statement that certain names numbered as follows: 191, 197, 206, 202, and 241—are excepted. The clerk's certificate on the first three pages did not purport to relate to any names on the fourth page.

Is the verifying petitioner in this case competent to verify the signatures, and should the names on this petition be counted?

(B) If this petition is defective, can the defect be cured by permitting the clerk to sign the certificate on the fourth page thereto, after the filing of the petition and the expiration of said 90 days heretofore mentioned (or can the Governor, after said 90 days, receive evidence from the said clerk that the omission to sign on the fourth page was through inadvertence, and on such testimony can the certificate be cured, and the petitioners be counted)?

Question 8.

(A) A verifying petitioner appears as a petitioner upon the petition verified, but is specifically excepted, as not being upon the voting list in clerk's certificate to the petition. His name does not appear on any other petition. Is he competent as a verifying petitioner, and should the names upon that petition be counted?

(B) If the petitioner excepted by the clerk described in the foregoing question gave his voting residence in the petition as from a different town, can the names on the petitions be counted, provided that said verifying petitioner is certified to as a qualified voter by the clerk of the town where he resides, after said 90 days have expired? Question 9.

(A) From a certain city there were seven petitions, each verified by a different verifying petitioner. The names on one sheet were numbered by themselves, and all certified to by the city clerk on June 26, 1915, as being upon the voting list. The names upon the other six petitions were numbered consecutively from 1 to 399. The city clerk on June 18th made his certificate on each of these six petitions, certifying by number the names in the first column only; as for instance, upon the first of these sheets the names from 1 to 32, inclusive, there being in the second column names numbered from 33 to 61. In the certificate the excepted names are said to be marked by a red star. On some of the sheets the only red stars there are appear in the second column.

At the end of the second column in the sixth petition is the following: "399 on sheet No. 5." And a name appears in the first column of sheet No. 5 between numbers 266 and 267. This name is No. 399.

Should the names in the second columns on these sheets be counted?

(B) The second of the foregoing petitions is verified by a verifying pe...