Referendum Questions |
October 29, 2009
Question 1: People’s Veto
Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?
This referendum asks whether Maine voters want to reject or accept amendments to the state’s marriage laws that were enacted by the Legislature and approved by the Governor in May 2009. The new law would allow same-sex couples to marry in Maine. It also would recognize such marriages lawfully performed in other states. It would allow individuals who are authorized to perform marriages to refuse to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple. Finally, the law does not allow any court or governmental body to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with a religious institution’s doctrines, policies, teaching or practices regarding marriage.
After the legislation making the above changes was enacted in May, 2009, petitioners collected a sufficient number of signatures of registered voters to refer it to the people for a vote at a statewide election. The effect of the legislation has been suspended pending the outcome of the election.
A “YES” vote would reject the new law and continue to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.
A “NO” vote would allow the new law to take effect, permitting same-sex couples to marry.
Question 2: Citizen Initiative
Do you want to cut the rate of the municipal excise tax by an average of 55% on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly fuel-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax?
This bill decreases the excise tax imposed on motor vehicles for the first year from 24 mills to 12 mills, for the 2nd year from 17 1/2 mills to 8 mills and for the 3rd year from 13 1/2 mills to 4 mills and imposes a 4 mills rate for the 4th and succeeding years. This bill also exempts from the excise tax imposed on motor vehicles the first 3 model years of a hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle, a fuel-cell-fueled or hydrogen-fueled vehicle or a highly energy efficient vehicle that has a highway fuel economy estimate of at least 40 miles to the gallon. After the first 3 years, the rate of excise tax is the same as on other motor vehicles of the same age.
This bill also exempts from the sales tax 100% of the sale or lease price of a new hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle, a fuel-cell-fueled or hydrogen-fueled vehicle or a vehicle with a highway fuel economy estimate of at least 40 miles per gallon.
If approved, this citizen initiated legislation would take effect 30 days after proclamation of the vote.
A “YES” vote favors enactment of the initiated legislation.
A “NO” vote opposes enactment of the initiated legislation.
Question 3: Citizen Initiative
Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect?
This citizen-initiated legislation would repeal the school district consolidation law that was enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in June, 2007, and subsequently amended in 2008 and 2009, and would re-enact the laws governing school administrative units in Maine that were in effect prior to June 2007.
The 2007 school district consolidation law required every school administrative unit in the state to submit a reorganization plan or alternative plan to the state Department of Education by December 1, 2007, and to present it for voter approval at a local referendum election to be held on or before November 4, 2008. The goal of reorganization was to reduce the number of school administrative units in the state from 290 to approximately 80, by creating Regional School Units and eliminating school administrative districts (SADs), community school districts (CSDs), and school unions that were formed under the laws in effect before June 2007. Each new Regional School Unit was to serve at least 2,500 students, or at least 1,200 students if it was impractical to create a larger unit due to geography, density and distribution of the population, or transportation problems. Island and tribal schools, school administrative units that already served more than 2,500 (or 1,200) students, and units with existing administrative costs of less than 4% per pupil and at least three high performing schools within the unit were allowed to file alternative plans. Every school administrative unit in the state was required to submit a plan demonstrating how it would reduce administrative costs.
The 2008 amendments to the school district consolidation law allowed isolated, rural communities to form units of fewer than 1,200 but no fewer than 1,000 students, and also allowed for the creation of alternative organizational structures as a third option for complying with the law. The deadline for getting voter approval at a referendum election was extended from November 2008 to January 30, 2009. Penalties for noncompliance with the law’s requirements, as amended, include reduced state subsidies for system administrative costs and a 2% increase in the education mill rate to be paid by a non-complying school unit.
In 2009, the law was further amended to delay penalties for one year for all school administrative units that are not yet in compliance.
All of the above provisions would be repealed by this citizen initiative, and the laws pertaining to school administrative units within the state that existed prior to June, 2007, would be re-enacted. The status of Regional School Units and alternative organizational structures already formed under the consolidation law will have to be addressed by the Legislature if this initiative is approved.
If approved, this citizen initiated legislation would take effect 30 days after proclamation of the vote.
A “YES” vote favors repeal of the 2007 school district consolidation law and its amendments.
A “NO” vote opposes repeal and favors leaving the 2007 school district consolidation law and its amendments in effect.
Question 4: Citizen Initiative
Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes?
This initiated bill imposes expenditure limitations on state and local government and requires voter approval of certain state tax increases.
Under this bill, growth in annual expenditures of the General Fund, the Highway Fund and Other Special Revenue Funds are limited according to increases in population and inflation. For the General Fund and Highway Fund budgets, revenues exceeding the expenditure limitation must be distributed by directing 20% of that excess to a budget stabilization fund and 80% of that excess to a tax relief fund. The budget stabilization funds may be used only in years when revenues are not sufficient to fund the level of expenditure permitted by the growth limits. The Tax Relief Reserve Fund must be used to provide tax relief through broad-based tax rate reductions or refunds proportional to individual income tax personal exemptions claimed in the previous tax year. The Highway Fund Reserve Fund must be used to provide a decrease in motor fuel taxes. For state agencies that manage Other Special Revenue Funds, the managers of those funds must report excess surpluses to the Legislature with a plan for refund of those revenues.
Under this bill, a state tax increase would require a majority vote of each House of the Legislature and majority approval of the voters.
This bill provides that state expenditure limits contained in the bill may be exceeded by a majority vote of each House of the Legislature and majority approval by the voters.
The bill adds the requirement of majority approval by the voters before municipal and county expenditure limits may be exceeded.
The bill requires majority approval by the voters for the annual indexing for inflation of motor fuel taxes.
The bill requires counties and municipalities to use a cost center budget summary format developed by the Department of Audit and requires information in that format to be made available to local voters, filed annually with Maine Revenue Services and posted on any publicly accessible website maintained by the county or municipality as well as on the Maine Revenue Services website.
If approved, this citizen initiated legislation would take effect 30 days after proclamation of the vote.
A “YES” vote favors enactment of the initiated legislation.
A “NO” vote opposes enactment of the initiated legislation.
Question 5: Citizen Initiative
Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution?
Current law allows a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from certain medical conditions to possess marijuana for medical use. This initiated bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to issue registry identification cards to patients who qualify to possess marijuana for medical use and to their designated primary caregivers. It sets limits on the amount of marijuana that may be possessed by qualifying patients and their designated primary caregivers. It allows the establishment of nonprofit dispensaries to provide marijuana to qualifying patients and directs the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a registration certificate to a nonprofit dispensary that meets certain criteria. It changes the description of the medical conditions for which the medical use of marijuana is permitted. It directs the Department of Health and Human Services to establish application and renewal fees sufficient to pay the expenses of implementing and administering the provisions of the initiated bill.
If approved, this citizen initiated legislation would take effect 30 days after proclamation of the vote.
A “YES” vote favors enactment of the initiated legislation.
A “NO” vote opposes enactment of the initiated legislation.
Question 6: Bond Issue
Do you favor a $71,250,000 bond issue for improvements to highways and bridges, airports, public transit facilities, ferry and port facilities, including port and harbor structures, as well as funds for the LifeFlight Foundation that will make the State eligible for over $148,000,000 in federal and other matching funds?
This Act would authorize the State to issue bonds in an amount not to exceed $71,250,000 to raise funds for a variety of projects, as described below. The bonds would run for a period not longer than 10 years from the date of issue and would be backed by the full faith and credit of the State. Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) of the bond proceeds would be placed in the Highway Fund and the remainder would be in the General Fund.
The Department of Transportation would expend $69,750,000 of the bond proceeds for the following types of projects:
$55,000,000 for highway and bridge improvement projects statewide; $5,750,000 for improvements to the ports at Eastport and Searsport;
$4,000,000 for improvements to state-owned rail lines and investments in the Industrial Rail Access Program and the Critical Rail Corridors Program;
$2,000,000 for improvements to publicly owned airports;
$1,000,000 for ferry facilities;
$1,000,000 for the LifeFlight Foundation, a non-profit foundation that supports a statewide medical helicopter service used to transport critically ill and injured patients to hospitals;
$400,000 to continue development of the Acadia Gateway Intermodal Center in Trenton;
$400,000 for improvements to island airports; and
$200,000 for upgrades to the Augusta airport.
The Department of Economic and Community Development would expend the remaining $1,500,000 of the proceeds of sale of the bonds to rebuild a bulkhead and wharf at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute in Portland.
If approved, the bond authorization would take effect 30 days after the Governor’s proclamation of the vote.
A statement of the Treasurer describing the financial considerations of this bond issue is published together with this statement.
A “YES” vote favors authorizing the $71,250,000 bond issue to finance all of the above activities.
A “NO” vote opposes the bond issue in its entirety.
Question7: Constitutional Amendment
Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to increase the amount of time that local officials have to certify the signatures on direct initiative petitions?
This proposal would authorize an amendment to the Constitution of Maine to change certain time frames in the direct initiative and people’s veto referendum process.
Direct initiative: The amendment would increase, from 5 days to 10 days, the time period for officials of cities, towns and plantations to complete their review of petitions for a direct initiative in order to certify which signatures are those of registered voters within their city, town or plantation. It also clarifies for these purposes that “day” and “days” means any day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. Direct initiative petitions would have to be submitted to municipal offices for review by 5 p.m. on the 12th day (instead of the 10th day, under current law) before the deadline for filing with the Secretary of State’s office.
There is a corresponding extension of the deadline for filing a direct initiative petition with the Secretary of State’s office. Under current law, that deadline is the 50th day after the Legislature convenes in a first regular session (the first year of the biennium) and the 25th day after the Legislature convenes in a second regular session (the second year of the biennium). This proposal would extend those deadlines by ten days to the 60th and 35th days, respectively. Petitioners would thus have approximately the same amount of time in which to circulate petitions and collect signatures under this proposal as under current law.
People’s veto: The only change to the time frames for a people’s veto petition is that such petitions would have to be submitted to municipal offices by 5 p.m. on the 3rd day (instead of the 5th day) before the deadline for filing with the Secretary of State’s office. Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are again excluded. The existing deadline in the Constitution for filing a people’s veto petition with the Secretary of State’s office would remain unchanged.
A “YES” vote favors adoption of this constitutional amendment.
A “NO” vote opposes adoption of this constitutional amendment.