STATE OF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OPINION OF THE JUSTICES OJ-15-2 BRIEF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED TO THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT BY THE GOVERNOR ON July 17, 2015 JANETT. MILLS ATTORNEY GENERAL SUSAN P. HERMAN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL PHYLLIS GARDINER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SIX STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0006 Tel. (207) 626-8800 TABLE OF CONTENTS .PAGES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 2 SOLEMN OCCASION .............................................................................................. 7 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................... 11 Question 1. What fonn of adjournment prevents the return of a bill to the Legislature as contemplated by the use of the word, adjournment, in Art. IV, pt. 3, §2 of the Maine Constitution? ..................... 11 Question 2. Did any of the action or inaction by the Legislature trigger the constitutional three-day procedure for the exercise of the Governor's veto? ................................................................................ 23 Question 3. Are the 65 bills I returned to the Legislature on July 16 properly before that body for reconsideration? ............................................ 24 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 26 ADDENDUM .......................................................................................................... 27 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .PAGES CASES Bakerv. Carr,369U.S.186(1962) ........................................................................... 9 Corwin v. Comptroller General, 1875 WL 5392 (1875) ........................................ 21 Hmpendingv. Haight, 39 Cal. 189, 1870 WL 857 (1870) ..................................... 21 Hawaiian Airlines, Limited v. Public Utilities Commission of the Territmy of Hawaii, 43 Haw. 216, 1959 WL 11641 (1959) ...................................................... 21 Hequembourg v. City ofDunkirk, 2 N.Y.S. 447 (1888) ......................................... 21 Hoppe v. Northern States Power Company, 215 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1974) ......... 21 In Re An Act to Amend an Act Concerning Public Utilities, 84 A. 706 (N.J. 1912) .............................................................................................. 22 In re Interrogatories of the Colorado Senate of the Fifty-First General Assembly, 195 Colo. 220, 578 P.2d 216 (1978) ....................................................................... 16 Johnson City v. Tennessee Eastern Elec. Co., 182 S.W. 587 (Tenn. 1916) ........... 20 Jubelirer v. Pennsylvania Department ofState, 859 A.2d 874 (Pa. Com. Ct. 2004), aff'd, 871 A.2d 789 (2005) ................................................... 22 Kennedy v. Sampson, 511F.2d430 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ............................................. 22 Miller v. Hwford, 11 Neb. 377, 9 N.W. 477 (1881) ............................................... 21 N.L.R.B. v. Canning, _U.S. _134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014) ............................... 15, 16 OpinionoftheJustices, 132Me491, 167 A. 176(1933) ....................................... 10 Opinion of the Justices, 2002 ME 169, if 3, 815 A.2d 791 ........................................ 8 Opinion of the Justices, 484 A.2d. 999 (Me. 1984) ................................................ 13 ii Opinion of the Justices, 623 A.2d 1258 (Me. 1993) ............................................... 14 Opinion of the Justices, 709 A.2d 1183 (Me. 1997) ......................................... 10, 24 Opinion of the Justices, 437 A.2d. 597 (Me. 1981) ................................................ 13 Opinion of the Justices, 3 Mass. 567 ( 1791) ........................................................... 19 Opinion of the Justices, 17 5 A.2d. 405 (Del. 1961) ............................................... 22 Opinion of the Justices, 45 N.H. 607, 1864 WL 1586 (1864) ................................ 21 People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9, 1863 WL 3219 (1863) .................................................. 23 Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929) ...................................................... 16, 21, 22 Redmondv. Ray, 268 N.W.2d 849 (Iowa 1978) ..................................................... 20 State ex rel. Gilmore v. Brown, 451N.E.2d235 (Ohio 1983) ................................ 20 State ex rel. Putnam v. Holt, 215 N.W.200 (Minn. 1927) ...................................... 21 State ex rel. State Pharmaceutical Ass 'n v. Michel, 936, 27 So. 565 (La. 1900) ... 21 State ex rel. Sullivan v. Dammann, 267 N.W. 433 (Wis. 1936) ............................. 21 State ex rel. Thompson v. Dixie Finance Co., 278 S.W. 59 (Tenn. 1925) .............. 21 State ex rel. Town ofNorwalkv. Town ofSouth Norwalk, 58 A.759 (Conn. 1904) ............................................................................................ 21 State v. Hunter, 447 A.2d 797 (Me. 1982) ................................................................. 9 State v. South Norwalk, 264, 58 A. 759 (Conn. 1904) ............................................ 16 Sweeney v. Tucker, 375 A.2d 698 (Pa. 1977) ............................................................ 9 Wood v. State Administrative Board, 238 N.W. 16 (Mich. 1931) .......................... 21 iii Wright v. Department ofDefense & Veterans Servs., 623 A.2d 1283 (Me. 1993) ... 9 Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938) ........................................................ 22 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1............................................................................. passim Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 2 ............................................................................. passim Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 2-A .................................................................................. 4 Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 3 ................................................................................ 5, 11 Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 4 ....................................................................................... 9 Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 12 .................................................................................. 11 Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, §§ 16-20 .................................................................... 11, 12 Me. Const. aii. VI, § 3 ................................................................................................ 8 STATUTES AND RULES 3 MRS § 2 .................................................................................................................. 2 3 M.R.S. §§ 22 & 42 ......................................................................................... 16, 17 House Rule 521 .......................................................................................................... 4 House Rule 522 ....................................................................................................... 24 P.L. 2015, ch. 376 ...................................................................................................... 7 P .L. 2015, ch. 377 ................................................................................................... 14 Senate Rule 520 ....................................................................................................... 24 Senate Rule 523 ......................................................................................................... .4 iv MISCELLANEOUS 1 Singer & Singer, Sutherland, Statut01y Construction, §§ 16.03-16.04 (7 111 ed.) . 21 Arnold Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §891(1891) ............................. 19 Black's Law Dictionary 1043 (5th ed. 1979) ............................................................. 9 Legis. Rec. H-1537-1538 (letter to House Clerk, dated April 18) .......................... 14 Legis. Rec. H-1589 ................................................................................................. 14 Legis. Rec. H-1590-1604 ........................................................................................ 15 Mason's Manual ofLegislative Procedure (2010 ed.) ............................... 10, 12, 24 Power ofExecutive to Sign Bill After Adjournment, or During Recess of Legislature, 64 A.L.R. 1468 ................................................................................... 21 What Amounts to Constitutional Provision that Bill Shall Become a Law If Not Returned by Executive Within Specified Time, Unless Adjournment Prevents Its Return, 64 A.L.R. 1446 ...................................................................... 21 v The Attorney General respectfully submits the following brief pursuant to the Court's Procedural Order of July 20, 2015, to assist the Justices in resolving the questions presented by the Governor in his request of July 17, 2015. Questions Presented The Governor posed the following questions: Question 1. What form of adjournment prevents the return of a bill to the Legislature as contemplated by the use of the word, adjournment, in Art. IV, pt. 3, §2 of the Maine Constitution? Question 2. Did any of the action or inaction by the Legislature trigger the constitutional three-day procedure for the exercise of the Governor's veto? Question 3. Are the 65 bills I returned to the Legislature on July 16 properly before that body for reconsideration? SUMMARY The correct answer to Question 1 is that adjournment sine die, or without day, is the only type of adjournment that prevents the retmn of bills by the Governor with his objections, within the meaning of Article IV, part 3, section 2, and thus is the only type of adjournment that stops the running of the 10-day clock for the Governor to exercise his veto power. Because the Legislature did not adjourn sine die on June 30, but merely adjourned temporarily until the call of Speaker and the Senate President, the applicable 10-day periods continued to run. As a result, all 65 bills held by the Governor until July 16, 2015, when he attempted to return them with objections, had already become law by operation of Maine's Constitution. Question 2 addresses the internal workings of the Legislature and is not the proper subject of an advisory opinion. If the Justices decide to consider Question 2 on the merits, the answer is no, because the Legislature adjourned only temporarily and thus did not trigger the three-day provision in the veto clause. Question 3 is not the proper subject of an advisory opinion under the general rule that the Justices will refrain from answering questions from one branch of government inquiring about the power, authority or duty of another branch. If the Justices decide to consider Question 3, the answer is no for the reasons outlined in response to Question 1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The 12ih Legislature convened its First Regular Session on Wednesday, December 3, 2014, and reconvened in January 2015. The statutory adjournment date for the session, pursuant to 3 M.R.S. § 2, was Wednesday, June 17, 2015. On June 18, 2015, the Legislature voted to extend the session for five legislative days and by the same motion voted unanimously to ratify "all action taken by the House and Senate on June 18, 2015 prior to the vote." Gov. Request, 2 Ex. 3. 1 Both Houses voted to extend the session for another five legislative days just after midnight on the night of June 23, 2015. In floor debate on the motion, House leaders indicated that they expected to meet on June 30 and again on or about July 16. Gov. Request, Ex. 8. In presenting the Joint Order to extend, Representative McCabe noted: There are some remaining items still with the other body so extending these days is appropriate so that we make sure that we can act on that work beyond July, I mean beyond June 30th. And, at this time, I hope that when we take this vote, folks will support this and will be prepared so that when we come back July 16111 , we can take up any 1 remaining items as well as when we come back on the 30t1 • Id. (emphasis added). Representative Fredette also referenced the likelihood of returning on July 16th in his remarks: ... my anticipation is that we would be able to ... come back on the 30th of June, complete some work on that day and come back on a second day, which may or may not be July the 16th, and complete some additional work that is required by this body on behalf the people of the State of Maine, and then be able to complete that work in a timely fashion so that we don't have to use those complete five additional days. On Friday, June 26, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House sent a memorandum via email to all members of the 12ih Legislature (attached as Ex. 3), which specifically anticipated meeting on June 30, July 1 (for potential line-item vetoes) and July 16. 1 June 18, 2015 constituted the first legislative day of the 5-day extension. See remarks of the Speaker and Rep. Fredette, Legis. Rec. House (June 18, 2015) attached as Exhibit 2. 3 The Legislature had many reasons to anticipate more line item vetoes from the Governor, who had already issued line-item vetoes on five bills (L.D. 's 260, 856, 1080, 1019 and 1185) during the period from June 12 through June 23, including 64 line-item vetoes on the budget bill (L.D. 1019). The Constitution gives the Governor one day to return a line-item veto, while reserving the full 10 days for him to veto the underlying bill. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 2-A. Under their rules, the House and Senate have only 5 calendar days to act on a line-item veto. Senate Rule 523; House Rule 521. Shortly before 11 :00 pm on June 30, the House and Senate adjourned "until the call of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, respectively, when there is a need to conduct business, or consider possible objections of the Governor." Joint Order (S.P. 556) attached as Ex. 7 to Governor's request. As noted by one member of the State House press corps in his blog post the following day (attached as Ex. 4), this type of adjournment clearly signified that "they're still not finished" and that only an adjournment "sine die" or "without day" would mean "no more sessions scheduled." As of the June 30 adjournment, the Governor had not yet acted upon 85 bills that had been presented to him less than 10 calendar days (Sundays excepted) before June 30. See Ex. 1. The Governor returned three of these bills to the Revisor of Statutes without his signature on July 1, and signed seven into law 4 during the period from July I to July 8. Id. As of July 8, the Governor was still holding the remaining 19 bills for which the 10-day deadline for action had expired, and 51 bills enacted on June 30 for which the time period for action was due to expire at midnight on July 11. Id. On Monday, July 6, the Senate posted notice that it would reconvene on July 16th at I 0:00 am. Ex. 5. On July 8, the Revisor of Statutes notified legislative leaders that the bills that had not been returned by the Governor within 10 days of presentation were being assigned Chapter numbers, as public laws or resolves. Ex. 6. The Governor issued a press release that same day asserting his right to hold onto these bills, stating: "As allowed by the Maine Constitution, the Governor will submit the vetoes when the Legislature meets again for three days." Ex. 7. Two Senators subsequently asked the Attorney General for an opinion regarding the status of these 19 bills. On July I 0, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion that the bills had indeed become law pursuant to Article IV, part 3, section 3 of the Constitution, since the Legislature had not adjourned sine die and more than 10 days had elapsed since these bills were presented to the Governor. Ex. 8. The Attorney General acted promptly in order to give the Governor an opportunity to act on the 51 bills that remained on his desk for which the 10-day deadline was due to expire at midnight the following day. 5 The House Clerk and Secretary of the Senate emailed the Governor's Office on Thursday afternoon, July 9, to indicate their availability "to come in on Saturday to pick up bills that may be vetoed" and included phone numbers where they could be reached. Ex. 9. The Governor's office acknowledged receipt of the communications that same afternoon. Id. On Friday, July 10, the Governor's Legal Counsel issued a memorandum outlining for the first time the Governor's unprecedented position and stating unequivocally: "[T]he Governor is not holding these bills as a result of a misstep or mistake. He is deliberately holding them based on his reading of the Maine Constitution ... [T]he Governor is waiting for the Legislature to reconvene for 4 consecutive days (the first day does not count), at which point, he will act." Ex. 10. That same day, the Governor's Counsel wrote to the Executive Director of the Legislative Council challenging the Revisor's actions in "chaptering" as public laws bills that the Governor was holding, and alleging that her actions constituted "overly partisan conduct." Ex. 11. The July 11th deadline passed without any bills being returned by the Governor with his objections. Accordingly, the Revisor assigned chapter numbers to those bills indicating that they had become law without the Governor's signature. After the Legislature reconvened on July 16, the Governor's staff attempted to deliver 65 veto messages for bills that had already been chaptered as public laws 6 or resolves on or before July 12, 2015. 2 The Governor was informed by the House Clerk and Secretary of the Senate that "because the bills had already become law and had been chaptered by the Revisor of Statutes," the bills "were not properly before the body" and would instead be delivered to the Revisor's Office. See Ex. 12. As noted by the Gove111or in his request, 17 of these chaptered laws are emergency enactments, which take effect upon approval. See Ex. 1. On July 16, the Senate overrode the Governor's vetoes of7 bills that had been returned on June 30. Both houses also considered two new bills presented by the Governor that day (L.D. 1453 and 1454), one of which was enacted and signed by the Governor. P.L. 2015, ch. 376. At approximately 6 p.m. on July 16, the House and Senate adjourned sine die, concluding the First Regular Session of the l 2ih Legislature. The Revisor issued a formal notification that all non-emergency measures would therefore take effect 90 days hence, on October 15, 2015. The following day, the Governor submitted this request for an Opinion of the Justices. SOLEMN OCCASION The Maine Constitution obliges the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court "to give their opinion upon important questions of law, and upon solemn 2 The Governor subsequently returned to the Revisor of Statutes 6 bills that he had been holding since June 30 (or before), to which he apparently no longer objected. These are listed on Exhibit 1 as having been returned without the Governor's signature on July 21, 2015. 7 occasions, when required by the Governor, Senate or House of Representatives." Me. Const. art. VI, § 3. 3 The "first issue that must be addressed," therefore, is whether the questions submitted by the Governor present "a solemn occasion involving important questions of law." Opinion of the Justices, 2002 ME 169, if 3, 815 A.2d 791. The status of 65 bills or resolves enacted by the Legislature on or before June 30, 2015 is at issue. Of these 65 bills, 17 were enacted as emergency measures. If the Governor missed the deadline to veto the bills, the emergency measures are now in effect and the non-emergency bills are law with an effective date of October 15, 2015. While legal precedent and historical practice overwhelmingly support the conclusion that these bills are now law, Question 1 raises an important issue that is critical to the public interest. There is substantial doubt as to whether Questions 2 and 3 present a "solemn occasion" because they relate to nonjusticiable political questions.'1 The political question doctrine "concerns 'questions of which comis will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character, or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or 3 Article VI, § 3 thus creates a narrow exception to the fundamental principle of separation of powers, articulated in Article III of the Maine Constitution, which would preclude the Justices from answering questions presented by the executive or legislative branch regarding their respective authority. Opinion of the Justices, 2002 ME 169, ii 5, 815 A.2d 791, 794. 4 Use of the term "political question" in this section refers to the legal principle that ce1tain issues should be resolved by a branch of government other than the courts. It is not meant to refer to paitisan politics. 8 legislative powers."' Wright v. Department ofDefense & Veterans Servs., 623 A.2d 1283, 1284-85 (Me. 1993) (quoting Black's Law Dictionmy 1043 (5th ed. 1979)). The source of the doctrine is the separation of powers principle, which prevents one branch of government from interfering with powers reserved to another branch. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962); see also State v. Hunter, 447 A.2d 797, 799 (Me. 1982). The factors noted in Baker are present here. Maine's Constitution clearly commits to the Legislature the power to enact appropriate statutory limits on the length of the first and second regular sessions and to determine the rules of its proceedings, both of which the Legislature has done. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, §§ 1 & 4; 3 M.R.S. § 2; see also Sweeney v. Tucker, 375 A.2d 698, 705 (Pa. 1977) ("A challenge to the Legislature's exercise of a power which the Constitution commits exclusively to the Legislature presents a nonjusticiable 'political question."'). In his request, the Governor states that the Legislature failed to "legally extend its session," that the Legislature conditionally adjourned "without day" and that the "exact date of the end of the session is likely disputed." The Governor's interpretation is in direct conflict with the Legislature's internal procedures, rules 9 and historical practice, including this Governor's past practice. It is for the Legislature, not the Chief Executive to determine when it is in session. 5 A review by the Justices of whether the Legislature properly extended its session, or properly framed its adjournment orders, raises serious concerns of comity and respect for a separate branch of government under the political question doctrine. Such questions relating to the internal operation of the Legislature do not present a solemn occasion but rather constitute nonjusticiable political questions which are not appropriate for an advisory Opinion of the Justices. Moreover, in the context of an advisory opinion of the justices, the Court has refrained from answering questions from one branch of the government inquiring about the power, duty or authority of another branch. See Opinion of the Justices, 709 A.2d 1183 (Me. 1997); In re Opinion of the Justices, 132 Me 491, 167 A. 176 (1933). For all of the above reasons, the Justices should decline to address the substance of Questions 2 and 3. 5 See National Conference on State Legislatures, Mason "s Manual ofLegislative Procedure. § 781 (20 I 0 ed.) (two houses of the legislature have the "right and power to make their respective journals show that all their business was transacted before the arrival of the moment of time for their adjournment as fixed by the constitution and, at least in the absence of a gross and flagrant violation of the constitutional restriction as to the length of the session, evidence is inadmissible to contradict the journal"). 10 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Should the Court address the merits of the questions posed, the Attorney General submits the following comments. 1. Question 1. "What form of adjournment prevents the return of a bill to the Legislature as contemplated by the use of the word, adjournment, in Art. IV, pt. 3, §2 of the Maine Constitution? The word "adjournment" means different things in different provisions of the Constitution, and its meaning can only be discerned in context. 6 The Governor's question attempts to narrow the focus to what is "contemplated by the use of the word, adjournment" in Article IV, part 3, section 2 of the Maine Constitution. The word "adjournment" is not used in isolation, however, and must be analyzed as part of the entire phrase in which it appears: If the bill or resolution shall not be returned by the Governor within I 0 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to the Governor, it shall have the same force and effect as if the Governor had signed it unless the Legislature by their adjournment prevent its return ... Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 2 (emphasis added). The only type of adjournment that stops the 10-day clock for the Governor's action on a bill is an adjournment that prevents the Governor from returning the bill. 6 The quorum provision, for example, provides that while a majority of the House and Senate "constitute a quorum to do business ... a smaller number may adjourn from day to day." Me. Const. at1. IV, pt. 3, § 3. See also id. art. IX, § 4 (Legislature may adjourn "from day to day" as necessary to complete election of officers); Me. Const. art. JV, pt. 3, § 12 (''Neither House shall, during the session, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than 2 days ... "). By contrast, the people's veto provisions, in defining the event that triggers the 90-day clock for regular enactments to take effect, use the phrase "recess of the Legislature" which is then defined as "the adjournment without day of a session of the Legislature." Id §§ 16, 20. 11 A. Adjournment sine die (or without day) prevents the return of bills by the Governor with his objections. When the Legislature adjourns "sine die," it finally concludes the regular session. Such action terminates all legislative business for that session. Mason 's Manual ofLegislative Procedure, § 445-3. It also triggers the 90-day clock for the effective date of non-emergency enactments and the time period for a people's veto of any such laws. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, §§ 16-20. Precisely because it has such legal significance, the Legislature treats the act of final adjournment with great formality. Each house sends a delegation to the other body and to the Governor to inform them that there is no further business to come before the body and that it is ready to adjourn without day. The members of the delegation typically inquire whether the Governor wishes to deliver any message to the House and Senate before the House and Senate adjourn the regular (or special) session. The motion to adjourn without day always includes the phrase "sine die" or "without day." Indeed, this practice has been consistent since at least 1850. See attachment to Ex. 8. There can be no doubt regarding when a regular session has finally adjourned because the language used by the House and Senate is express, and these formalities are always observed. Once the Legislature has finally adjourned (i.e., adjourned sine die), it has no authority to act until convened in a special session, either by proclamation of the Governor, or at the call of the Speaker and Senate President with the consent of 12 a majority of members of both parties. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 1. Adjournment sine die of a regular or special session does "prevent the return" by the Governor of any bills enacted during that session because the session has ended and the Legislature has no authority to consider the Governor's veto. This is recognized in prior Opinions of the Justices and has never been questioned. 7 B. Temporary adjournment during a regular session may not be construed as adjournment sine die. Motions for temporary adjournment during a regular session often include a specific date - e.g., motion to "adjourn until 10:00 am on" a specified day. Numerous examples of such motions are referenced on the chart attached as Exhibit 13. There are many reasons why the Legislature may not wish to specify a return date, however, and failing to specify does not convert its action to an adjournment sine die. Adjournment sine die means there can be no more days in that regular or special session. By contrast, a legislative vote to adjourn to an unspecified date - e.g., "until the call of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, respectively, when there is a need to conduct business, or consider possible objections of the Governor" (Joint Order S.P. 556, attached as Ex. 7 to Governor's 7 The instances involving Governors Brennan and Baldacci, cited by the Governor LePage's legal counsel in their July 10, 2015 memorandum, all involved situations in which the Legislature had adjourned its regular session sine die before the Governor took any action. See Ex. 10 at 3-4. Earlier Opinions of the Justices cited by the Governor's legal counsel also dealt with instances when the Legislature had expressly adjourned sine die, which is not the case here. See Opinion of the Justices, 484 A.2d 999 (Me. 1984); Opinion of the Justices, 437 A.2d 597, 604 (Me. 1981). 13 request)- is a vote to adjourn for a period of time during the session. It is not the same legal act as an adjournment sine die and there is no legal basis to treat it the same. 8 To construe any adjournment that fails to mention a specific date for returning as an adjournment without day would unconstitutionally restrict the Legislature's power. Unlike the Governor's authority, "[l]egislative power is defined by limitation, not by grant, and is absolute except as expressly or by necessary implication restricted by the Constitution." Opinion of the Justices, 623 A.2d 1258, 1262 (Me. 1993). If the Legislature had to set a specific date for its return in order to avoid having a tempora1y adjournment construed as an adjournment without day, it could frustrate the Legislature's ability to address lineitem vetoes and to control the conduct of its own business. 9 The Legislature would 8 Indeed, to construe a motion to adjourn "until the call" as equivalent to adjournment sine die (as the Governor's legal counsel suggested in a Memorandum dated July l 0, 2015 (Ex. 10)) would lead to absurd results. Non-emergency bills enacted during the regular session would have different effective dates, with a different batch taking effect 90 days after every motion for a temporary adjournment lacking a specific date to reconvene. And the Legislature would have to call itself back into a new special session after every such motion. Indeed, if the Governor's view of the June 30'h adjournment order were to prevail, the validity of two emergency bills (one of which he presented) enacted on July 16 would be in question. P.L. 2015, c. 376 and 377. 9 The legislative record for 2012 illustrates this problem. During its second regular session, the l25'h Legislature adjourned on April 14, 2012 "until 10:00 am on May 15." Governor LePage then returned line-item vetoes on a budget bill. The Speaker was unable to garner support of a majority of members of both parties to call the House into session before that specific date and thus had to forego the opportunity to override those vetoes. See Legis. Rec. H-1537 - 1538 (2012) (letter to House Clerk, dated April 18). When the House and Senate adjourned on May I 7 (after reconvening on May 15), they did so without specifying a date, moving instead to adjourn "until the call of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, respectively, when there is a need to conduct business pursuant to the Joint Order (S.P. 689)." Id. at H-1589. They returned on May 31 to consider several vetoes that the Governor had submitted after May 17, 2012. Id. at H-1590 - 1604; see Ex. 13. 14 be forced to stay in session every day until the Governor had exercised all of his veto powers, regardless of whether the bodies had any other business to conduct. Once again, the Legislature has plenary authority to determine when and how it adjourns. That is not for the Governor or the Judicial Branch to decide. See N.L.R.B. v. Canning, _U.S. _134 S. Ct. 2550, 2574 (2014) (Senate is in session when it says it is). C. No form of adjournment other than an express adjournment "sine die" or "without day" prevents the return of bills by the Governor with his objections. Nothing short of adjournment sine die of the regular session of the Legislature actually prevents the return of bills by the Governor. This is evident from the language of the Constitution and historical practice of the legislative and executive branches in Maine. This conclusion is also consistent with the majority view in other jurisdictions expressed in case law and treatises dating back to 1791. 1. The language of the Constitution recognizes that temporary adjournments do not prevent the return of bills. Since the veto provision in Article IV, part 3, section 2 excludes Sundays, but not Saturdays or other legal holidays, that provision clearly contemplates the return of bills when the Legislature is not conducting business in daily session. Nothing in the language of section 2 precludes the Governor from returning a bill to the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate on a day when the House and Senate are not in daily session. See 3 M.R.S. §§ 22 & 42; In re Interrogatories of 15 the Colorado Senate of the Fifty-First General Assembly, 195 Colo. 220, 578 P.2d 216 ( 1978) (vetoed bills were returnable to the General Assembly during recess at which time the chief clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate and, from time to time, the Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the House and the majority leader of the Senate were in attendance in the respective chambers). Indeed, as discussed below, this has been the usual practice in Maine for decades. 2. Historical practice demonstrates that a temporary adjournment during the regular session does not prevent the return of bills by the Governor. "Long settled and established practice is a consideration of great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions" regulating the relationship between the legislative and executive branches of government. NL.R.B. v. Canning, 134 S. Ct. at 2559 (quoting the Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655, 689 (1929)). The practical construction given to a provision of the Constitution by the executive or legislative branch, in which the other branch has acquiesced "while not absolutely binding on the judicial department, is entitled to great regard in determining the true construction of a constitutional provision the phraseology of which is in any respect of doubtful meaning." Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. at 690 (quoting State v. South Norwalk, 58 A. 759, 761 (Conn. 1904)). In this instance, the Legislature has a long history of adjourning for a period of several days or weeks before the end of a regular session and then returning to 16 wrap up its business, including the consideration of gubernatorial vetoes. The Governor is not prevented from returning bills during such a temporary adjournment. He need only deliver the bills to the House Clerk or the Senate Secretary, and they will be entered on the Journals of that body for consideration as soon as the members reconvene to resume business. See 3 M.R.S. §§ 22 & 42. The attached chart (Ex. 13) shows the historical practice since the 1973 amendment to the veto provision, in which Governors have routinely returned bills with objections during such temporary adjournments, and the Legislature has reconsidered the bills, either overriding or sustaining the Governor's vetoes, before finally adjourning the session sine die. Indeed, Governor LePage followed this practice every year of his first fouryear term. In 2014, for example, the Legislature adjourned on April 18 until May 1. In the intervening weeks, Governor LePage returned 40 bills with his objections to the Senate and House. See Ex. 13 (referencing communications dated April 22, 23, 25, 28, 29 and 30). The Legislature reconsidered those bills when they reconvened on May 1, 2014, and then adjourned sine die. The same pattern occurred in 2011, 2012 and 2013. 10 10 During the First Regular Session of the 1261h Legislature, the House and Senate adjourned on June 27 until July 9, 2013; the Governor returned 30 bills with objections during that interval; the House and Senate met to reconsider those bills on July 9 and then adjourned without day. During the First Regular Session of the 125'" Legislature, the House and Senate adjourned on June 16 until June 28, 2011; Governor LePage returned 8 bills with objections in the intervening days; the House and Senate reconsidered those bills on June 28 and then adjourned sine die on the evening of June 29, 2011. 17 The history of these four legislative sessions demonstrates that this Governor has experienced no difficulty returning bills during a temporary adjournment period in the midst of a regular session in the past, regardless of whether the Legislature specified a date for reconvening in the adjournment order. The pattern at least four decades demonstrates an established and common understanding of both the legislative and executive branches of government that a temporary adjournment does nothing to prevent a Governor from returning bills with objections, nor does it prevent the Legislature from reconsidering those bills before adjourning their regular session. 3. The overwhelming weight of authority supports the conclusion that only a final sine die adjournment prevents the return of a bill within the meaning of Article IV, part 3, section 2 of the Maine Constitution. The majority of jurisdictions which have construed comparable constitutional provisions have held that only adjournment sine die prevents the return of a bill. The majority rule dates back to a 1791 Opinion of the Justices issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Opinion of the Justices, 3 Mass. 567 ( 1791) (copy attached in Addendum). In that case, the Justices clearly distinguished between a sine die adjournment, where there is no subsequent In the Second Regular Session, the 1251h Legislature adjourned on May 17, 2012, "until the call of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, respectively, when there is a need to conduct business pursuant to the Joint Order (S.P. 689)." No return date was specified in the Joint Order. The House and Senate reconvened on May 31 "according to adjournment" and reconsidered four bills that had been returned by the Governor with objections during the tempora1y adjournment. See Ex. 13. 18 meeting of the same legislative body (referred to as a "Prorogation"), and a temporary adjournment, where the same legislative body returns. The Justices opined that where there is a final sine die adjournment before the expiration of the time for the Governor's veto, the bill does not become law, but where the adjournment is not final, the bill does become law. Id. at 567-568. The rationale in the Massachusetts Opinion is also consistent with the general rule described by Justice Story in his treatise on the United States Constitution with regard to the balance between the veto power of the President (called the "qualified negative") and the legislative check to prevent an undue exercise of that power: The Constitution, therefore, has wisely provided that, "if any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, it shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it." But if this clause, stood alone, Congress might in like manner, defeat the due exercise of his qualified negative by a termination of the session, which would render it impossible for the Present to return the bill. It is therefore added, "unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." (Emphasis added). Arnold Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §891 (1891). Justice Story's historical treatise makes clear that it is the termination of the session, or a sine die adjournment, that would prevent return, triggering the "pocket veto" provision of the United States Constitution. Similarly, the courts which have followed the majority rule reason that it is only a final sine die adjournment which prevents the return because the legislative session has ended 19 and the legislature is prevented from reconsidering a bill and finally enacting it over an executive veto. The Massachusetts Opinion of the Justices was followed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Opinion of the Justices, 45 N.H. 607 (1864). A similar result was reached in the majority of jurisdictions to have considered the issue under comparable state constitutional provisions. See, e.g., State ex rel. Gilmore v. Brown, 451N.E.2d235 (Ohio 1983) (word "adjournment" within meaning of constitutional provision requiring the Governor, in case adjournment by General Assembly prevents return of a vetoed bill, to file bill in office of Secretary of State means adjomnment sine die and not a weekend adjournment); Redmond v. Ray, 268 N.W.2d 849 (Iowa 1978) (an intra-session three to four-week legislative adjournment during which an agent is designated to receive messages from the Governor is not an adjournment which prevents return of disapproved bills and hence does not trigger pocket veto provision); Johnson City v. Tennessee Eastern Elec. Co., 182 S.W. 587 (Tenn. 1916) (adjournment means final adjournment and governor cannot veto bill by returning it after 33-day temporary adjournment); Hequembourg v. City ofDunkirk, 2 N.Y.S. 447 (1888) (temporary ten-day adjomnment of legislature did not prevent the return of bill by the governor and it became a law); Miller v. Hwford, 9 N.W. 477 (Neb. 1881) (adjournment means adjournment sine die and not period during which legislature 20 adjourned temporarily for two months); Hmpending v. Haight, 39 Cal. 189, 1870 WL 857 (1870) (governor could have retmned a bill during the constitutional period to an agent of the Senate while not in actual session because it still has an organized existence as a legislative body). 11 Cases interpreting the "pocket veto" clause of the United States Constitution are also consistent with the majority rule. In the Pocket Veto Case, Congress adjourned its First Session sine die less than ten days after presenting a bill to the President. The Supreme Court held that during this inter-session adjournment, the President was prevented from returning the bill, within the meaning of the constitution, even if it was returned to a duly authorized officer or agent of the 11 See also Hoppe v. Northern Stales Power Company, 215 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1974) (adjournments short of final adjournment will not prevent the return of legislative bills by the governor and during temporary and interim adjournments, the governor is free to return the bills, with his objections, to any member or officer of the proper house of the legislature); Hawaiian Airlines, Limited v. Public Utilities Commission of the TerrilOJJ' of Hawaii, 43 Haw. 216, 1959 WL 11641 (1959)(constitutional phrase "unless the legislature by their adjoumment prevent its return" refers to sine die adjoumment); State ex rel. Sullivan v. Dammann, 267 N.W. 433 (Wis. 1936) (adjournment in constitutional provision concerning return of bills by the Governor means "sine die" adjournment and temporary adjoumment for more than three days did not prevent bill from becoming law where Governor failed to return it in relevant time period); Wood v. State Administrative Board, 238 N. W. 16 (Mich. 1931) (only adjournment "without a day" prevents the return of a bill by the governor); State ex rel. Putnam v. Holt, 215 N. W .200 (Minn. 1927) (bill vetoed by the governor need not be returned to the house of origin while in session, but may be returned to presiding officer, secretary, clerk, or member); State ex rel. Thompson v. Dixie Finance Co., 278 S. W. 59 (Tenn. 1925) (bill need not be returned by governor to General Assembly while in session, but may be returned to a clerk or some member of the committee on enrolled bills); State ex rel. State Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Michel, 936, 27 So. 565 (La. 1900) (adjournment means final adjournment and governor can properly return a bill during relevant period to agents of the originating house); Corwin v. Comptroller General, 6 S.C. 390, 1875 WL 5392 ( 1875) (bill might have been returned by governor to agents of the house while temporarily adjourned and such an adjournment does not prevent compliance with the constitutional requisition); Opinion of the Justices, 45 N.H. 607, 1864 WL 1586 (1864) (final adjournment is the only adjournment that can prevent the return of a bill); see also What Amounts to Constitutional Provision that Bill Shall Become a Law 1fNot Returned by Executive Within Specified Time, Unless Adjournment Prevents Its Return, 64 A.L.R. 1446; Power of Executive to Sign Bill After Acfjournment, or During Recess of Legislature, 64 A.L.R. 1468; I Singer & Singer, Sutherland, Statutory Construction, §§ 16.0316.04 (7 1h ed.). 21 House in which the bill originated. · 279 U.S. at 683-84. Later, in Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938), the Court held that the President was not prevented from returning a bill because of a three day intra-session recess of the Senate. The rationale of Wright was followed in Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F .2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1974 ). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia concluded that a brief intra-session adjournment for the Christmas holiday (6 days for one House, five for the other) did not prevent the President from returning a bill, noting that "[M]odern methods of communication make it possible for the return of a disapproved bill to an appropriate officer of the originating House to be accomplished as a matter of public record accessible to every citizen." Id. at 441. A minority of jurisdictions have held to the contrary .12 Those cases rely upon constitutional provisions that are different from ours (for example, the Delaware and Pennsylvania constitutional provisions which refer to both final (sine die) and temporary adjournment), and the cases do not fully analyze the historical underpinnings and precedent. 12 See Jubelirer v. Pennsylvania Department ofState, 859 A.2d 874 (Pa. Com. Ct. 2004), ajj"d, 871 A.2d 789 (2005) (under constitutional provisions which mention both adjournment and adjournment sine die, tempormy adjournment does prevent return triggering altemate veto procedure ofreturning bill to Secretary of the Commonwealth and giving public notice within 30 days); Opinion of the Justices, 175 A.2d. 405 (Del. 1961) (under constitutional provisions which mention both adjournment and final adjournment, temporary adjournment does prevent the return of a bill for purposes of triggering pocket veto); In re An Act to Amend an Act Concerning Public Utilities, 84 A. 706 (N.J. 1912) (temporary recess prevents return of a bill); State ex rel. Town of Norwalk v. Town ofSouth Norwalk, 58 A.759 (Conn. 1904) (3 days for governor's return did not iuclude days when general assembly was in actual session); People v. Hatch, 33 Ill. 9, 1863 WL 3219 (1863) (governor prevented from returning bill when legislature not in session). 22 The Attorney General urges the Justices to uphold the consistent historical practice in Maine and follow the rule adopted by the majority of jurisdictions, including the earliest opinion on the subject from Massachusetts, a state which shares most of Maine's history and legal precedent. Question 2. Did any of the action or inaction by the Legislature trigger the constitutional three-day procedure for the exercise of the Governor's veto? In Question 2, the Governor appears to be asking the Justices to opine on the propriety of actions taken by the Legislature when it extended its session on June 18, 2015, and whether the wording used by the Legislature in its June 30, 2015 temporary adjournment order amounted to an adjournment sine die. While these aspects of the Governor's question fall within the political question doctrine, to the extent the Justices reach the merits of the question, the answer to the question is no. Since the Legislature had not adjourned sine die before the Governor's time for returning his veto had expired, the three-day procedure was not triggered. The Legislature properly extended its session on June 18, 2015, and ratified all previous action taken by both Houses. 13 See Ex. 2 & Gov. request, Ex. 3. Nothing in the Constitution (or statute) requires the Legislature to formally extend the session prior to midnight on the last day. As discussed, the Legislature has the 13 According to Maso11 's Manual of Legislative Procedure, § 146-6, the Legislature may ratify any action that it had the power to authorize in advance and the ratification dates back to the action that was ratified. Mason's is referenced in House Rule 522 and Senate Rule 520 as a guide for procedure. 23 exclusive authority to make and enforce its own rules governing procedure, including "the power and right to determine for itself when the moment of time has arrived for adjournment." Mason's Manual ofLegislative Procedure, § 781-4. Question 3. Are the 65 bills I returned to the Legislature on July 16 properly before that body for reconsideration? Like aspects of Question 2, Question 3 is not the proper subject for an advisory Opinion of the Justices because Question 3 would require the Justices to answer a question from one branch of government about the power, duty or authority of another branch of Government. Opinion of the Justices, 709 A.2d 1183 (Me. 1997). Should the merits of Question 3 be reached, the answer to Question 3 is no because only sine die adjournment triggers the 3-day alternative veto procedure, and the Legislature did not adjourn sine die until July 16, 2015, after all applicable 10-day periods for the exercise of the Governor's vetoes had expired. 24 CONCLUSION For the above reasons, should the Justices address the merits of any of the questions presented, the Attorney General respectfully suggests that the Justices advise the Governor to faithfully execute all 65 measures that became law without I his signature on or before July 12, 2015. Dated: July 24, 2015 Respectfully submitted, ' ~~A~r, Ml . S..r N« l';i I JANETT. MILLS Attorney General Me. Bar No. 1677 SUSAN P. HERMAN Deputy Attorney General Me. Bar No. 2077 PHYLLIS GARDINER Assistant Attorney General l~fe. Bar No. 2809 Office of the Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0006 Tel: (207) 626-8800 25 I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, do hereby certify that I caused to be served the Brief of Attorney General Submitted in Conjunction with Questions Propounded to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court by the Governor on July 24, 2015 on the following by first class mail prepaid to: Cynthia L. Montgomery, Esq. Office of the Governor 1 State House Station Augusta ME 04333-0001 Timothy C. Woodcock, Esq. Baton Peabody 80 Exchange Street P.O. Box 1210 Bangor, ME 04402-1210 Dated: July 24, 2015 ~~ JANETT. MILLS \="rAttorney General 26 .----- ADDENDUM Brief chronology of relevant constitutional and statutory provisions 1820 Legislature to convene annually; annual elections for Governor and members of the House and Senate. Me. Const. Art. II, § 4 and Art. IV, pt. 3, § 1. Veto provision in Art. IV, pt. 3, § 2 concludes as follows: If the bill or resolution shall not be returned by the Governor within 5 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, it shall have the same force and effect as if the Governor had signed it unless the Legislature by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall have such force and effect, unless returned within 3 days after their next meeting. 1841 Established two-year term for Governor and members of the House and Senate; Legislature to meet once in 2 years. Const. Res. 1941, ch. 181 (eff. Mar. 17, 1842). 1880 Established biennial sessions of the Legislature, with biennial elections of Governor and members of House and Senate. Const. Res. 1879, ch. 151 (eff. Mar. 18, 1880). 1909 People's veto and direct initiative adopted; established that no laws, other than emergency provisions, would take effect until 90 days "after the recess of the legislature passing it;" "recess of the legislature" expressly defined to mean "adjournment without day of a session of the legislature." Me. Const. Art. IV, pt. 3, §§ 16-22, enacted by Const. Res. 1907, ch. 121 (eff. Jan 6, 1909). 1957 Governor's term extended from 2 to 4 years. Const. Res. 1957, ch. 95 (eff. Sept. 19, 1957). 1970 Legislature given authority to convene itself into special session, "on the call of the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House, with the consent of a majority of the members of the Legislature of each political party, all members of the Legislature having been first polled." Const. Res. 1969, ch. 74 (eff. Jan. 14, 1970). 1973 Veto provision amended to add that if Legislature "prevents return" of a bill by adjournment, then Gove1nor has 3 days after the next meeting of the same Legislature that enacted the bill to return it with objections. Const. Res. 1973, ch. 2 (eff. Oct. 3, 1973 ), amending the last clause of Art. IV, pt. 3, § 2 as follows: ... unless returned within 3 days after their the next meeting of the same Legislature which enacted the bill or resolution; ifthere is no such next meeting of the Legislature which enacted the bill or resolution, the bill or resolution shall not be a law. 1975 Established annual sessions of the Legislature with specific dates for convening the first regular session in the year following the biennial election, and a second regular session in the subsequent year. Const. Res. 1975, ch. 5 amending Art. IV, pt. 3, § 1 (eff. Oct. 1, 1975). Also amended Art. IV, pt. 3, § 16 to clarify that the 90-day period until a bill takes effect runs from the recess of the session a/the Legislature in which the bill was passed. Id. 1976 Veto provision in Art. IV, pt. 3, § 2 amended to expand period for Governor to act from 5 days to 10 days. Const. Res. 1975, ch. 6 (eff. July 29, 1976). 1976 Legislature amended 3 M.R.S. § 2 to establish time limits for the first and second regular sessions (at 100 days and 50 days, respectively), with provisions authorizing two extensions of 5 legislative days each, based on a 2/3 vote of each body, plus a veto day. P.L. 1975, ch. 750, § 1 (eff. July 29, 1976). 1985 Legislature amended 3 M.R.S. § 2 to specify dates for adjournment, rather than set a number of days for each session; first regular session to "adjourn no later than the 3rd Wednesday in June" and the second regular session by "the 3rd Wednesday in April." P.L. 1985, ch. 166 (eff. May 10, 1985). 1995 Constitution amended to authorize line-item veto. Const. Res. 1995, ch. 1 (eff. Nov. 27, 1995), enacting Art. IV, pt. 3, § 2-A. See Opinion of the Justices, 673 A.2d 1291 (Me. 1996). •. ' ! ~ .- ' . ' ' REPORTS OF .. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINE:d IN TIIE SUPRE1\1:E JUDICIAL COURT; OF '£1-IE VOL., ... III• . CONTAINING TH/< CASES FROM JUNE, 1so1, · TO THE END OF THE YEAR, 1fr DTJDLEY ATKINS TYNG, EsQ. COUNSELLOR .AT LAW. TvlTil A SUPPLEMENT. .... ..... .... .... . ...................................... . .. • < • ' EXETER: ;l'Ril!ITED ny CnaRLES NoRRrs i;· Co. FoR Wn,LJAM SAWYER <5' Co; NowburypoN. ... AND FARRAND, MALLORY i;· Co, Boston .... 1sos. · SUP,PLEMENT •. fol/owin~ con;nin,i~g THE two Documents the solemn Op;nion of,,,. Court upon 'il.i1estions duly submitted to. their., considerl!tion, pu1·... suant lf! the Constitution, Chapter ~· Article 2. it was· ,thought exM pedient to transfet them fr'!m ~he Neicspapers., in wl!ich they .were published, into the Reports, thai'a tnore easy lind general access may be hacl to them, should any future discussions a.rise on- the sanie subjects. · I. Opinion of the- Justices'of the Supreme Judicial C~urt on.. certaia Questions referred to them by the Senate of Massachusetts in the year 1791. , THE Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, In obedience to your Honours' orders of the 14th. of February last, beg ·leave to submit the following opinions, in answer to your Honours' Questions. First. 1\rhether a Bill or Resolve, having passed both branches of the Legislature, and being laid before the Governor for his approbation, less than five days before. the recess of the General Court next preced.. ing the last '\rednesday iu Ma)r, and five days before the_ period when. the Constitution requires tbe General Court shall be dissolved, but not acted upon by him, has by the Constitution the force of Law ? If by recess in this question is meant a recess after a Prorogation, or recess after an adjournment, 1vhero the1;e is no subsequ~n~ meeting of the same General Court on tbaf adjournment, we are clearlf of opinion that such Bill or Resolv0 hits no{ the force of La,v. ' Secondly. Whether a Bill or Resolve, having passed both branche< of the Legislature, and being }aid before the Governor for his appro .. bation, less than five days before any recess of the General Court, othBr than such as is stated in the preceding Question, and not acted UpOn-by him, has the fo:rce of La\v ? If by the term recess, in the second, is intended a recess upon an ad.. journment, and such Bill or. Resolve lays more than five days before the Go;vernor for his approbation, including the days Of the Courts sitting before the adjournment, and so many days of the Courts sitHng upon the adjournment, as will make up tlle full term of five days, with- 56.8 SUPPLEMENT. out the Governor's returning the same, with his reasons fo~'.;:fi proving it, vre conceive such Bin or Resolve has the forc·e.-.::';fi: for all the dayS of the Court's sitting are but one SesSio)z, althq~~ ~djournmen_t intervenes. tVJ1e11 a Prorogation_takCs placCftiiC'S is :nded, and a Bill or Resolve, ·· All which is humbly submitted ·}·'.-' NATHANIEL P. SAll.G.Ei\.' FRANCIS DANA .. ,. ;; .. ROBERT. T. PAIN.E.·;· . lNCREASl'J. S.\'JMWl'!l\, N, C{.JSfHNG,::c.,,,.'.· Boston, lrlaJ! 9, 1791. ,, ,'- •. . . , - ' . . . fr. ' - . . \: ~'~!: :'~'-: ,, :!~~l~:r ·:·' -'.---. .,_:'c•(f.'>*.( ,J Leite,. f,.om the Justi~es of the S"P"~'fle,J~~i'djiJ Governor of the _Conimonweqltfl. of 1l[q$sqc?irtie:t(s_j; Question upon whicl!, he had re~uested ihvir Opiniof.'. '[ . '. ,..-,; ':/t~- :-·~ IT P-LEAsE .J.ifAY . . YouJt- Exc:ELLENCY. - - WE requ~;~; ;lll~ have received your LWer of tlie Supreme Judicial Court, !lgrceably ta·t4e'prpv~lot).'.,Q stitution, their opinioIJ. !JD the fQH~nring qqei;tJ,oJ!; -;_;;_:f;~f(' "Whether the Constitutipu of this (;:omll).o!lw~~lt4 l!I! " itauts of any of the unincorporated p!gntati.o.rrs .i.J\{!~~~ ,,. in their votes·· for··.GoveJ)il:or liijq Lielitflrifn1t G-'.~v'J'_f_jjf>f"f{ Ifaving considered that question, 1Ve nOw:traJ\~i_t_~&~-.t~~;:the best opinion we nave been able to :form .. ·._. - _- -:-' :c·::_--~~i:J:':-,_~i_ The Constitution of tho Commonwealth is illi lir.igin)il.p<\'. pressly, solem~ly, and mutually made between the P.ellp!e)«~; izen. On this cOmpact is.founded, not only th_e .pP:yf~f~~~pg~;' the several ~Iagistrates and officers Of governm_ent_, ff.&·1ib~';1'~-~ and agents of the People: but also the political rights. Md:!/ Chart of Chaptered Laws and Resolves (including only bills presented to the Governor between June 18 and June 30, 2015) -~::i t:O Became law LD If Presented to Public !Enacted by IGov Action I Signed I Returned w / o I Returned w I ,Legislature Governor deadline I Objections I Signature Law ch. 14111 1-Jul 17-Jun 30-Jun ' 18-Junl 7/1/2015 300 n/a n/a 18-Jun 1-Jul 17-Jun 30-Jun 7/1/2015 301 1196 n/a n/a 18-Jun 18-Jun 30-Jun 1-Jul 580 7/1/2015 302 n/a n/a 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 1-Jul 284 7/1/2015 303 n/a n/a t-1-Jul 304* 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 1307 n/a 7/1/2015 n/a 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 1-Jul 1415 7/1/2015 305 n/a Il/8:[_ 30-Jun 11-Jul 6-Jul 306* 1272 30-Jun 7/6/2015 n/a n/al 16-Jul 19-Jun 1-Jul 7;2;2015 307 25 19-Jun n/a n/al 7 ;2;2015-1 19-Jun 1-Jul 16-Jul 19-Jun 308 113 n/a n/al 16-Jul 19-Jun 19-Jun 1-Jul 309* 1145 7/2/2015 n/a n/a 16-Jul 22-Jun 22-Jun 3-Jul 310 78 7/4/2015 n/a n/a 16-Jul 22-Jun 3-Jul 7/4/2015 311 299 22-Junl n/a n/a 16-Jul 312 722 22-Jun 3-Jul 7/4/2015 22-Junl n/a n/a 22-Jun 16-Jul 313 756 7/4/2015 22-Jun 3-Jull n/a n/a 22-Jun 16-Jul 314 870 7/4/2015 22-Jun 3-Jull n/a n/a 22-Jun 22-Jun 3-Jul 16-Jul 315 1013 7/4/2015 n/a n/a 22-Jun 3-Jul 16-Jul 316 1039 7/4/2015 22-Jun n/a n/a 22-Jun 22-Jun 3-Jul 317 1085 16-Jull 7/4/2015 n/a n/a 22-Jun 22-Jun 1108 3-Jul 16-Jul 7/4/2015 318 n/a n/a 319* 22-Jun 22-Jun 3-Jul 1303 16-Juli 7/4/2015 n/a n/a 16-Jul 320* 234 23-Jun 23-Jun 4-Jul 7/5/2015 n/a n/a 16-Jul 522 23-Jun 23-Jun 4-Jul 7/5/2015 321 n/a n/a 23-Jun 4-Jul 21-Jul 322 822 23-Jun 7/5/2015 n/a n/a 23-Jun 23-Jun 4-Jul 16-Jul 323 1185 7 /5/201-si n/a n/a 23-Jun 24-Jun 6-Jul 16-Jul 324 369 7/7/2015 n/a n/a 6-Jul 16-Jul 1391 24-Jun 7/7/2015 325 23-Junl n/a n/a 11-Jul 30-Jun 30-Jun 8-Jul 326 91 n/a 7/8/2015 n/a 30-Jun 11-Jul 8-Jul 327 30-Jun 6521 n/a n/a 7/8/~~ 11-Jul 7-Jul 1452 30-Jun 30-Jun 328 n/a 7/7/2015 n/a! 329* 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 13811 16-Jull 7/12/2015 n/a n/al 11-Jul 330* 729 30-Jun 30-Jun 7/12/2015 n/a n/a 16-Jull 16-Jul 11-Jul 331* 1044 30-Junl 30-Jun 7/12/2015 n/a n/al ....... *contains emergency preamble Chart of Chaptered Laws and Resolves (including only bills presented to the Governor between June 18 and June 30, 2015) LD Public Law ch. 332* 333* 334* 335* 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 3581 359 360 361 362 363 # Presented to Became law GovAction I Signed I Returned w/ o Retumedw/ Legislature Governor deadline Signature Objections 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul 7/12/2015 1348J n/a n/a 30-Jun 1451 11-Jul 16-Jul 30-Junj n/a n/a 7/12/2015 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul 86' 30-Junl n/a 7/12/2015 n/al 30-Jun 11-Jul 7/12/20-1s1 186 30-Junl 16-Jul n/a n/al 30-Jun 93 30-Junl 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/201S1 1205 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul 7/12;2015-1 n/a n/a 30-Jun 231 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jull 7/12/2015 n/a n/a 679 30-Jun 11-Jul 30-Junl 21-Jul 7/12/2015 n/a n/aj_ 787 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 30-Jun 30-Jun 839 11-Jul 21-Jul n/a 7/12/2015 n/al 853 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul 7/12/2015 n/a n/a 921 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Julj 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 941 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 1166 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul 30-Jun n/a n/a 7/12/2015 1246 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 1291 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 21-Jul n/al n/a 7/12/2015 1337 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 21-Jul n/a 7/12/2015 n/a 30-Jun 13721 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a 7/12/2015 n/a 1449 30-Jun 11-Jul 30-Jun 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 140 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a 7/12/2015 n/a 30-Jun 164 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 170 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jull n/a 16-Jul, 7/12/2015 n/a 210 30-Jun 30-Jun 16-Jull 11-Jull n/a 7/12/2015 n/a 222 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a 7/12/2015 n/a 319 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 431 30-Jun 11-Jul 30-Jun 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 5121 30-Jun 11-Jul 30-Junl 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 582 30-Jun 11-Jul 30-Jun 16-Jul n/a 7/12/2015 n/a 651 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 21-Jul n/a 7/12/2015 n/a 727 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul n/a n/a 16-Jull 7/12/2015 30-Jun 1332 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 1277 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 16-Jul n/a n/a 7/12/2015 I Enacted by * contains emergency preamble Chart of Chaptered Laws and Resolves (including only bills presented to the Governor between June 18 and June 30, 2015) LD# Public IEnacted by Presented to IGov Action I Law ch. Governor ILegislature deadline 30-Jun 364 1160 30-Jun 11-Jul 365 1040 30-Jun 30-Junl 11-Jul 30-Jun 11-Jul 983 30-Jun 3661 367 840 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 368 767 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 370 666 18-Jun 18-Jun 30-Junl 18-Jun 371 919 18-Jun 30-Jun 372* 1230 18-Jun 18-Jun 30-Jun 18-Jun 373 125 30-Jun 18-Jun 374 1369 18-Jun 18-Jun 30-Jun 375 623 18-Jun 18-Jun 30-Jun Resolve Enacted by LD# !Presented to GovAction I Governor chapter Legislature deadline 43* 260 22-Jun 22-Jun 3-Jul 44* 155 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 45* 63 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 46* 1042 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 47* 30-Jun 905 30-Jun 11-Jul 48* 721 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 49 500 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 50 1350 30-Jun 11-Jul 30-Junl 51 261 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 52 418 30-Jun 30-Jun 11-Jul 1202 30-Jun 30-Jun 53 11-Jul 30-Jun 54 831 30-Jun 11-Jul *contains emergency preamble Signed I Returned w Io Signature n/a n/a n/a n/a n/al n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Returned w/ !Became law Objections 16-Jul 7/12/2015 n/a 16-Jul 7/12/2015 n/a 16-Jul 7/12/2015 n/a 16-Jul n/a 16-Jull n/al --1 30-Junl n/a 7/16/2015 --1 30-Jun n/a 7/16/2015 -~-~ 30-Jun 7/16/2015 n/a 30-Jun 7/16/2015 n/a 30-Jun 7/16/2015 n/a 30-Jun 7/16/2015 n/a ~;~~;~~ I SignedlReturned w/o Signature n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/al IReturned w / n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/al n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IBecamelaw Objections 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 16-Jul 7/4/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 7/12/2015 LEGISLATIVE RECORD - HOUSE. ,June 18. 2015 The SPEAKER. Pursuant to Tills 3. Section 2. the date of adjournrnent for the First Begular Session of the 1271h Legislature is hereby extended beyond June 17, 2015 for an additional f1ve legislative days, and further lhal all actions taken by the House and Iha Senate on June 18, 20t5, prior to the vole, fife hereby ratified. Al this point !he Speaker laid before the House tho following question, 'Will !he House extend \he First Regular Session of the 127th Logislalure beyond Juno 17, 2015 for an additional five legtslative days?'' The SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Representative from Newport, Representative Fredelia. Represenlalive FREDETTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, sorry for the break. Obviously, pursuant to the Maine Constitution, we have a Constilulional requirement to adjourn on the third Wednesday of the month of June. We obviously are here on a Thursday, so we're technically beyond that dele, end not even technically, we are beyond lhal dale. And so, in order, I think, for the body lo continue the important work Iha! we have on behalf of the people of the Stale of Maine, we have sllil lots of bills to do Iha!, essenllnHy what my understanding is, what I believe we should do, as a body, take a roll call on this matter, so I'd be asking for a roll call. ii would require a two-thirds vole of this body lo conlinue lo extend an additional five days as permllled under \he Stale Constitution and state lav1, so that we can continue to do our work in a legal lashion on behalf of the people of the Stale of Maine. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Subsequently, the same Representative REQUESTED a roll call on the motion lo EXTEND the First Regular Session of the 1271h Legislature beyond June 17. 2015 for an addillonal five legislative days. More lhan one-fifth of Iha 1ncn1bers present expressed a desire for a roll call which was ordered. Tho SPEAKER: Tho Chalf recognizes the Represenlallve from Skowhenan, Representative McCabe. Representative McCABE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Men end Women of the House. I just rise to agree v1Uh my good colleague from Newport. Representative Fredette. suggests Iha! we light the board up in green, and then we move on with the atlernoon. with the other work we have, and move forward with tho many bills !hat are still between the bodies. Thank you very much. The SPEAKER: The Chair will read !he language one more thne before the vole is open: Pursuant to Title 3, Section 2, the date of ad1ournn1r:nf for the First Regular Session of !he 127lh legislature is hereby extended beyond June 17, 2015 for an additional five legislative days. and further that all actions taken by the House and the Senate on .June 18. 2015, prior to this vote, are hereby ratmed. The SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Represenlalive from Berwick, Represenlalive O'Connor. Representative O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker. mey I pose a quesllon through the Chair? The SPEAKER: The Representative may pose her question. Representative O'CONNOR· Are these five consecutive days slarting from today? Whal days are these Iha! we're voling on? The SPEAKER: Whal we are voling on is, we have five days outlined in the Constitution. If we go beyond slalulmy adjournment, we can extend beyond the five legislative deys. This Is !he first legislative day beyond statutory adjournment. This would be our first legislative day. The 8P[AKEH: The Chair recognizes the Representative frorn Newport, Representative F1edette. Representallve FREDETTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think lo the extent that al the end of each day vJhen we decide In con1P. back, and \Ve adjou1n set for the next additional day al a specific lime, thal would be establishing !he next legislalive day. And so, we did that last night when we decided to corne back tuday. And so, as we continue lo do that. I lhlnk at !he end of the day when you say, essenllally, "We are going to adjourn unlll to1norrov-1. We will come In session at 9 o'clock," that then \Vould be counted as a legislative day. That's how I would interpret Iha!. Pursuant lo 3 M.R.S.A .. Seclion 2. !his EXH:NSION of the First Regular Session of !he 12ih Legislature beyond .June 17, 2015 for an additional five legislative days, required !he affirmative vole of two-thirds of the membership present The SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Representative from Brooksville, Representative Chapn1an Representallve CHAPMAN: I'm just concerned about the Integrity of !his system. about my sealmale who Is not here has a vole registered. The SPEAKER: A roll call has been ordered The pending question before the House is Extension. All those in favor will vote yes, those opposed will vole no. ROLL CALL NO. 296 YEA - Alley, Austin, Babbldge, Bates, Baille, Beavers, Beck, Beebe-Center, Bickford, Brooks, B1yanl, Burstein, Campbell J, Campbell R. Chace, Chapman, Chenelle, Chipman, Cooper, Corey, Daughtry, Dillingham, Dion, Doore, Duchesne, Dunphy M, Edgecomb, Espling, Evangelos, Farnswor1h, Foley, Fowle, Fredette, Frey, Gatline, Gerrish, Gideon, Gilbert, Glllway, Glnzler, Golden, Grant, Grohman, Hamann, Hanington, Harlow, Hawke, Head, Herbig, Herrick, Hickman, Higgins. Hilliard, Hobar1. Hobbins, Hogan, Hubbell, Hymanson, Jorgensen, lm.it,_I Good morning from Augusta, where they're still not finished. The House and Senate adjourned late Tuesday, for you parliamentmy procedure geeks, "until the call of the president and speaker." What we 're looking/or, in terms of the end of the session, is adjournment "sine die, " which means "without day, "which means no more sessions scheduled, which in layman's terms, means "they're really, really done this time." Unless there's a special session, but let's not go there. The House and Senate plowed through a considerable amount of work on Tuesday, including something north of 50 veto override votes - which consumed several hours of each chamber's EXHIBIT4 day. They dispensed with several bills, including enactment of(/_ 1.,ug_ d.i'tli, which now go to LePagefor consideration. Now starts the waiting game with LePage, which is the reason they adjourned the way they did. Here's why: Several bills that required fimding- about $2 million worth altogether - were enacted Tuesday and sent to LePage. LePage could line-item veto the jimding levels in those bills - just as he did 64 times in the biennial budget - which he must do within 24 hours. That brings us through Wednesday afternoon. If there are line-item vetoes, the Legislature has to consider them within jive days and would convene either late Wednesday afternoon or Thursday. There is little question that LePage has his veto pen ready for just about every bill that comes across his desk- he has promised to veto every single one, after all - though he does let a few to go into law. It is hard to imaging him vetoing, for example, 1he historic hill .1e11ftf; /.litfl_ Tw"'d£1rJi1,11_11·i/f 1i/0_~'Jc'm1ce11!1,·d q llYYl11g11{Li11ndmms 1Fitbi>JllJNIJIJ}I), which has long been a goal ofthe governor's, The Legislature plans to reconvene on July 16 for "veto day, "when the only business is supposed to be vetoes. Ha! Ifie govemQUJf'fs.Lri?JQ_j/{I)' i11 2QLlJ.iJJJL'Qf!O,\'e llJ' To: "Alallla Durkin" , "Mario Moretto (mmoretto@bangordailynews.com)" , "Scott Thistle" , "Kevin Miller" , ajhiggins@mpbn.net, "Mal Leary (mleary@mpbn.net)" , "Naomi Schalit" , "Mike Violette (MViolette@portlandradiogroup.com)" , "Ken Altshuler (KAltshuler@portlandradiogroup.com)" , rictyler@blueberrybroadcasting.com, steve@howiecarrshow.com, "Assignment Editor (wabi@wabi.tv)" , "Assignment Editor (wmtw@wmtw.com)" , "Assignment Editor (assignments@wgme.com)" , "Assignment Editor (newscenter@wcsh6.com)" , "Assignment Editor (newscenter@wlbz2.com)" , wvom@blueberrybroadcasting.com, "tvmail-wgme" , "Amy (tv7news@wvii.com)" , "Ted Varipatis (Ted.Varipatis@wcsh6.com)" , "Mike E Reagan" , "Angel Matson (amatson@wabi.tv)" , "Jon Chrisos (ichrisos@wgme.com)" , "David Charns (dcharns@hearst.com)" , "Don Carrigan" Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 9:39:38 AM Subject: Pocket Veto - Inaccurate Term Used By Some Media Please see the following statement regarding 19 bills currently on the Governor's desk: This is not a pocket veto. As allowed by the Maine Constitution, the Governor will submit the vetoes when the Legislature meets again for three days. It has been a contentious session, and many in the Legislature claimed they did not have time to deal with the vetoes. The Legislature can choose to meet for at least three days now, or they can wait until they come back January. Either way, they will have ample time to thoughtfully consider these vetoes, rather than rushing through them in another veto-override spree without understanding what they are voting on. Please note: The Legislature passed a joint order on June 30, 2015 to adjourn-not to "recess. " There are three separate, but equal branches of government. The Legislature creates and passes legislation while the Executive Branch implements the law. The Governor and Chief Legal Counsel have carefully reviewed the chief executive's authority within the State of Maine Constitution and, rest assured, the Governor will take appropriate action and the bills will be delivered to the 127th Legislature in accordance with the State of Maine Constitution. Thank you, Adrienne Adrienne A. Bennett, Press Secretary Office of Governor Paul R. LePage Adrienne.Bennett@Maine.gov 1 EXHIBIT? 2015-01 HEOlON,-\l 0Ff!CES 8•1 HARLOW S·r. 2Nll FLOOR ]ANl'T T. DANGiY xlf~'f!, · ·• · . · . : #.!«! I . . ~'t/lrf/1~1n:d~_,,el;:u/ll;~¢1?1?{.ft/~~1.~t?@. · l.t#it# #./:~ 1 1 '' I ' i C,'f~~ti. 'J!d>c?! ,-tu if_?U"~/) rPP.01 ! · '.1'11Y.''.~~r ~~{ ~ ~¥1;-?bbi ,P/;pbft/eft> .ff';?l?)·"l -- ; · l.-=".'1i!f?·%/r'a.ra_,, -~- £t6t!A -~ -r.1di t/ttdl/i!f-M o.ifi/ I(.'.-A' ' . I :/Oi:M41/ yfl/'V:~,' . I . I) ( ;.// . ' . . ' # . : I _7 ... ~--:~~:yjl//I~?)//rli.?N7~4ft~ ~wk"~Y.: I~4'/.i%1!7_f ,~ -~ _g;/ar./tf ~ -rz,~~a1'1// ~ Il<''t a!lj1tr-11/.-t{ptfJ) dtr.i.-e'/ . rJtqt a?.' ,dtr/;(/~. , I .. . . .. . ... . . . - . , [ : -···· I· . ,,,_-:;,//a. · ! . .1~~~~ .1' II ' / «1&:· ~t:Y.~ /~' o/;tb ,ii~ r:rtfo/fU4'!i t#ilki:f/T ./ ' 47.'tt:P.dt /)Z(/l-0: 'awt# : ./ I .· . c-~~~.7~c-Ytv.t~ :!!1;~"!4/1fv M-cM-4reco,(#rr.1'.'.'~ !jft Thursday, July 09, 2015 2:44 PM Hunt, Rob RE: Saturday Thank you for the email, Rob. Lance Libby Legislative Policy Coordinator/Policy Advisor Office of Governor Paul R. LePage 207-287-3533 - Office 207-592-0041 - Mobile Lance.Libby@Maine.Gov From: Hunt, Rob [mailto:rob.hunt@leqislature.maine.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 2:30 PM To: Libby, Lance Cc: Hicks, Ana; Priest, Heather Subject: Saturday Hi Lance, I was writing to let you know that if you need me to come in on Saturday to pick up bills that may be vetoed, I am more than willing to do so. Please call me at 207-756-5476. I will be in Belgrade about 20-25 minutes away. I do have to go to a memorial service for my grandmother that day, but I will have my phone with me and will be available afterwards. Let me know if you have any questions. All the Best, Rob Hunt Clerk of the House Maine House of Representatives 2 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 (207) 287-1400 1 ' ':. ·,;~: ·• .·.·: MEMORANDUM TO: GOVERNORUll'AGE FROM: CYNTHIA L. MONTGOMERY, CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL HANK FENTON, DEPUTY LEGAL COUNSEL SUBJECT: GOVERNOlt'S VETO POWER AND ADJOURNMENT DATE: 7 /10/2015 Governor, the following Is my analysis of the current situation concerning a number of bills you are holding. This memo has been prepared for release to the Legislative leadership and the media. First and foremost, the Governor is not exercising what Is known as the "pocket veto." The Governor has not even considered using the "pocket veto" because It Is not available to him' during the first regular session. Any claims to the contrary by media or political bloggers are nothing but attempts to create a long line of ill-informed, one-sided and unfair news stories that are not helpful to anyone in the resolution of the dispute over the meaning of the relevant Maine Constitutional language. Secondly, the Governor is not holding these bills as a result of a misstep or mistake. He is deliberately holding them based on his reading of the Maine Constitution. The analysis of his decision to hold these bills follows. The Governor Is hold Ing a number of bills he has been prevented from returning to their legislative houses of origin due to the Legislature's adjournment. In situations like this, the Constitution provides that the Governor must exercise his veto power within 3 days after the reconvening of that same Legislature. In essence, the Governor Is waiting for the Legislature to reconvene for 4 consecutive days (the first day does not count), at which point, he will act. FACTS Pursuant to 3 M.R.S. §2, the statutory adjournment date for the 127"' Legislature was June 17, 2015. It Is not totally clear but it appears that on June 17, the Legislature attempted to exercise Its statutory option to extend the adjournment deadline for 5 legislative days, and it also appears It did so again on June 24. In any event, it appears that these acts (or at least one of them) carried the session to June 30. In session on June 30, 2015, the Legislature presented a number of bills to the Governor for his consideration. On that same day, June 30, the Legislature adjourned pursuant to a Joint Order "Adjourning until the Call of the Speaker and President" (SP 556). The Legislature has not returned from that adjournment. 1 EXHIBIT 10 ..... ··.<-~; :-:;<<.·- ·:-: LEGAL ANAL YSJS The Governor is holding these bills, waiting on the Legislature to reconvene for 3 days, because he has been deprived by the Legislature's adjournment of the opportunity to return these bills to their houses of origin. He has the right to hold these bills untll "3 days after the next meeting of the same Legislature which enacted the bill[s]" Me. Const. Art. IV, §2. In their zeal to play "gotcha" with the Governor, the Democrats and their many friends In the media have failed to do their research, have misread the law or simply don't understand that this is the way legal issues are raised and, ultimately, addressed: someone begins by challenging the status quo. The Maine Constitution provides limitations on both the Legislature's and the Governor's action with respect to the enactment of laws and thereby balances the powers of government between three branches. The Legislature Is restricted In the number of days it has to enact laws and, of course, Its enactments are subject to the Governor's veto power. The Governor, In turn, also has time limits within which he must exercise his veto power, a power that is subject to potential override by the Legislature. In the case at hand, the legislature chose to act In such a way as tp trigger the Constitutional grant of a different procedure, which gives the Governor 3 consecutive days after the legislature reconvenes to exercise his veto power. There is no requirement in either the Constitution or state law mandating the Legislature to adjourn for longer than the Constitutional grant of 10 days for the Governor to exercise his veto power. Once It chose to adjourn and not return within 10 days, however, the Legislature triggered the 3-day procedure. Restrictions on the Legislature's enactment authority The Maine Constitution provides, "The Legislature shall enact appropriate statutory limits on the length of the first regular session ... The Legislature may convene at such other times on the call of the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House, with the consent of the majority of the Members of the Legislature of each political party, all Members of the legislature having been first polled." Me. Const. Art. IV, Part Third, §2. Accordingly, Maine law provides," ... The first regular session of the legislature, after its convening, shall adjourn no later than the 3rd Wednesday in June" 3 MRS §2. Maine law further provides, [t]he Legislature ... may by a vote of 2/3 of the members of each House present and voting, extend the date for adjournment for the first ... regular session by no more than 5 legislative days, and ... by a vote of 2/3 of the members of each House present and voting further extend the date for adjournment by 5 additional legislative days. The time[] for adjournment for the first ... regular session[] may also be extended for one additional legislative day ... " The essence of these provisions Is that "adjournment" has legal significance in the Constitution and it operates to trigger particular deadlines. Restrictions on the exercise of the Governor's veto power With respect to the Governor's general veto power, the Maine Constitution provides, 2 ... If the bill ... shall not be returned by the Governor [to the bill's house of origin] within 10 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to the Governor, it shall have the same force and effect as If the Governor had signed it unless the Legislature by their adjournment prevent its return. In which case it shall have such force and effect unless returned within 3 days after the next meeting of the same Legislature which enacted the bill ... [emphasis added] Me. Const. Art. IV, Part Third, §2. The essence of this provision is to answer the question, "What happens if the Legislature presents bills to the Governor, then adjourns, and does not reconvene within the 10 days the Governor is constitutionally given to exercise his veto power?" The answer is that the Legislature must reconvene for 3 full consecutive days, giving the Governor the opportunity to return the bills to their house(s) of origin and giving the Legislature time to reconsider the vetoed bills and vote on sustaining or overriding them. The Supreme Court has already opined on and answered some of the question~ at hand. In 1981, Governor Joseph Brennan submitted a series of legal questions to the Justices of the Maine Supreme Court concerning the State's trust responsibility with respectto submerged lands because of a newly enacted law pending the Governor's action. In that case, the bill was presented to Governor Brennan on June 19, 1981. On that same day, the Legislature adjourned sine die. Ordinarily, the bill would have become law when not acted on by the Governor within 10 days. "However," the Justices said In their August 27, 1981 answer, "the adjournment of the Legislature tolled that period, and the Governor has until three days after the next meeting of the 11o•h Legislature to act on the bill." The Justices further noted that the Governor was entitled to the 3 days even though "the Legislature met in special session for one day on August 3, 1981." The Justices stated, "We are of opinion, however, that article IV, pt. 3, §2 requires that the same Legislature must be continuously In session for three days before the period in which the Governor may act on the pending bill expires. That is so because article IV, pt. 3 §2 also provides that the Governor, if he disapproves a bill, shall return it to the Legislature, obviously for the purpose of the Legislature's reconsideration. The Legislature would have no opportunity to do that unless It Is still In session." The Justices concluded that the blll had not yet become law as of August 27 and wa? still awaiting the Governor's signature. Opinion of the Justices, 437 A.2d 597 (1981). How to count the 3 days was a subsequent question answered by the Justices in 1984. In that case, a bill was presented to Governor Brennan on May 7, 1984, following adjournment of the Legislature on April 25, 1984. Governor Brennan did not return his objections to the House until September 7, 1984, the fourth calendar day of Special Session, which commenced on September 4, 1984. The Justices opined that the Governor's objections were timely filed because the day of the triggering event is excluded from computation of the 3 days. Opinion of the Justices, 484 A.2d 999 (1984). The Governor has until after the Legislature Is in session for 3 consecutive days to deliver his veto message(s) to the bills' house(s) of origin. As It did In the situation Governor Brennan faced, the Legislature's adjournment on June 30, 2015 has prevented the Governorfrom returning his objections to the bill(s)'s house(s) oforlgin within the 10 days he Is constitutionally granted for the exercise of his veto power. In essence, the Legislature's 3 .' '"·. ,_. - -.-:-:· adjournment has tolled the 10-day period. Consequently, the Governor has until 3 days after the triggering event, which is the reconvening of the Legislature. In fact, the Maine Legislature has faced this situation before. In 2003, LO 1361 was enacted on.June 11 and sent to Governor Baldacci. On June 14, the Legislature adjourned sine die. The Governor held the bill-which had been enacted by both houses with "veto-proof' margins-as of June 26. The Legislature was in special session from August 21 to 23, 2003 but did not deal with the bill. On January 13, 2004, the bill was recalled from the Governor's desk and eventually "died." Likewise, LO 1690 was enacted on June 16, 2005 and delivered to Governor Baldacci. Though that Legislature came back for a one-day special session on July 29, 2005, the bill sat until the Legislature reconvened in January 2006, Governor Baldacci then delivered his objections on January 10, 2006 and his veto was sustained. Others may argue that In these cases and the ones before the Justices, the adjournment was sine die, and therefore they are inapposlte to the question at hand. That argument must fail, however, for two reasons: 1) the Constitution does not require "adjournment sine die" to trigger the 3-day procedure and 2) even if It does, the Legislature has In essence and effect, adjourned sine die. The Maine Constitution does not require adjournment sine die to trigger the 3-day procedure. First, the plain language In Article IV, Pt. 3, §2 unambiguously provides that when "adjournment" - not "adjournment sine die" -prevents the Governor's return to the bill's House of origin, he gets 3 days after the Legislature reconvenes to exercise his veto power. Moreover, the Constitution, In another, unrelated provision refers to "adjournment without day'' (i.e., adjournment sine die), which indicates that the Constitution contemplates the distinction between adjournment and "adjournment without day." Since the triggering event In this provision Is adjournment and because the Legislature is currently adjourned, the Governor has been unable to return his objections to the blll(s)' house(s) of origin. Rejecting the argument that the word "adjourn" In the veto provisio11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution meant "adjournment sine die," the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania said,"... If we were to accept ... [the] interpretation [that adjournment meant adjournment sine die] ... then the General Assembly could prevent the Governor's veto, and thereby subvert the checks and balances of the Pennsylvania Constitution, by passing a bill, presenting it to the Governor and adjourning for a period longer than ten days." Jubelirer v. Pennsylvania Dept. ofState, 859 A.2d 874, 877 (2004), ftnt 2. In addition, some may argue that-as has been asserted by Democratic Majority Leader Jeff McCabethat the Legislature is not adjourned; it is In "recess." Hence, the argument goes, the bills on the Governor's desk have become law because they were presented to the Governor more than 10 days ago and the Legislature Is not adjourned. This argument ignores its own fatal flaw. The Legislature has Indisputably been adjourned for the purposes of Art. IV, Part Third, Section 2, since June 30, 2015. The Legislative record clearly shows that Senate Paper 556 titled "Adjourn Until the Call of the Speaker and President" was passe,d on the evening of June 30, 2015. Because the Legislature adjourned and has not reconvened since the passage of SP 556, these bills have not become law without signature. The Legislature must meet for 3 full consecutive days in order for the bills to either be vetoed by the Governor or become law. In the alternative, even If the word "adjournment" In the Constitutional provision at issue is construed to rnean "adjournment sine die," the facts suggest that while no one used the phrase, "sine die," the Legislature has actually done just that - adjourned "without day." On June 30, 2015, the Legislature 4 .--;--:·· adjourned "Until the call of the Speaker and President." While many clalrn that the Legislature will reconvene on July 16, It will not be done pursuant to a duly raised, considered and voted on motion that can be found In the Legislative database. Rather, the June 30 joint order makes clear that the Legislature is adjourning until some unspecified future day-or not, If the Speaker and President do not call them back. Likewise, according to Mason's, "When no provision has been made as to the time for reconvening, and the adoption of the motion to adjourn would have the effect of dissolving the body, the motion is, In fact, a motion to ... adjourn sine die ..." Mason, Paul, Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, Eagan, MN: West, 2010, §201, p. 162. In this case, the Legislature did not provide a time for reconvening and the motion did dissolve the body. Finally, once the bills being held by the Governor became the subject of Intense media scrutiny on July 8, 2015, the Maine Office of the Revisor of Statutes notified legislative leadership that it was "chaptering" the bills as law. Pursuant to Title 3 MRS §163-A, sub-§§ 3 and 4, the legislative staff (which Includes the Revlsor's Office) chapters laws "after the adjournment of each session ..." In essence and effect, the Joint Order to adjourn until the call of the Speaker and President constituted an adjournment without day and the conduct of the Legislature subsequent to that adjournment confirms that. Others may also maintain that because the Legislative clerks remain In the State House when the legislators are gone, the adjournment does not prevent the return of the bill to Its house of origin. The weakness In this claim Is that the clerks were presumably present in 1981 and 1984 when the Justices Issued their opinions and they were likely present when Governor Baldacci did not return LD 1361 In 2003 or LO 1690 in 2005. Clearly, returning a hill to its house of origin must be more than simply dropping It off in a clerk's office, If simply delivering tl1e bill to the clerk satisfies the Constitutional requirement of returning a hill to its house of origin, then there would never be a need for the 3-day procedure. Some may also claim that if the Governor's position is correct, then 3 MRS §2, which allows the Legislature to extend the statutory adjournment date by two 5-leglslatlve-day periods and one more day, known as "veto day,'' would be Invalid, Such an argument Is short-sighted, As the law currently stands, the Legislature's "remedy'' Is simple. When the Legislature adjourns as it did on June 30, 201S, It must do so knowing that under the Constitution, It will be required to deal with the blll(s} at issue at a time when it is in session for 3 consecutive days. Among other possible options, it can schedule "veto day" on the eleventh day after it presents the bill(s) to the Governor; It can call a special session at any time after Its adjournment to deal with the Governor's objections; or It can wait to deal with the Governor's objections during the second regular session In January. In all of those cases, 3 MRS §2 Is valid and ·operating consistently with the Constitution. Some may also contend that strictly construing the word "adjournmenr' as used in the Constitution would wreak havoc during future sessions because each temporary adjournment would subject the Legislature to uncertainty as to the legal significance of that adjournment and would Increase the risk of repeatedly triggering the 3-day procedure. These fears are unwarranted because this dispute did not arise during the regular session. Rather, it arose after the statutory adjournment date. As mandated by the Constitution, the Maine Legislature has a very specific, statutorily created period of time in which to conduct its business. It cannot drag things out forever-the legislative session must end. That same statute allows the legislature to extend the period in which it may conduct business by 11 additional days-10 days for the Governor to exercise his veto power and one more day for the Legislature to reconsider the bill once it is returned by the Governor. It is reasonable and consistent with the rules of statutory construction to treat the period of time beginning with the statutory adjournment date to the end of the statutorily allowed 11 days or to adjournment sine die, whichever comes first, differently 5 I'· than the regular session. This is so because In the vast majority of Instances during the regular session, the Governor is allowed 10 days in which to exercise his veto power and temporary adjournments do not prevent the return of the bill to Its house oforlgin. This ls so because adjournments fix a date and/or time of return. Moreover, should the Constitution be so construed, the Legislature can handle any uncertainty or sense of risk by simply adjourning to a date certain or paying attention to the timing of when bills are presented In relation to when they must be returned so that the Governor Is allowed 10 days to exercise his veto power and can return the bills when the Legislature is not adjourned. Finally, some may also argue that the Governor's position is inconsistent with standing practice. If there's one thing this Governor Is known for, it Is not doing things a certain way just because "that's the way we've always done it." While it may have been the practice to schedule "veto day" outside of the 10 days that the Governor is granted to exercise his veto power, the Legislature cannot insist that its practice and/or interpretation of its statute trump the plain language of the Maine Constitution. Moreover, this is not the first time a bill has been held because the Legislature's adjournment prevented its return. In fact, it happened at least twice during the Baldacci administration. The Legislature can continue its practice as long as it desires, but If it chooses to adjourn after the statutory adjournment date and within the 10-day period the Governor has to exercise his veto power, then It must then follow the Constitution and understand that the Governor's veto message is not due until "3 days after the next meeting of the same Legislature which enacted the bill." CONCLUSION By adjourning on June 30, 2015 after presenting to the Governor a large number of bills, the Legislature deprived the Governor of the opportunity to return them to their house(s) of origin within 10 days of their presentment. Fortunately, the Constitution contemplates just such a scenario and offers a very simple remedy. It grants the Governor the right to hold these bills until "3 days after the next meeting of the same Legislature which enacted the bill[s]" Me. Const. Art. IV, §2. The Justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court have also shed light on the application of this Constitutional provision. In 1981, they opined that when the Legislature's adjournment prevents the Governor from returning the bill to its house of origin, the Governor Is not required to return the bill until 3 days after the same Legislature reconvenes, and they have to convene for 3 consecutive days. Convening for just one day is insufficient to trigger the 3 days. In 1984, the Justices said that because the Legislature reconvening is the triggering event, the date that they first reconvene does not count when computing the 3 days. Hence, they must convene for four days. Approximately 20 years later, In 2003, Governor Baldacci did exactly what Governor LePage is doing. After the Legislature had adjourned, a bill sat on his desk until the following January when It was actually recalled by the Legislature and later killed. A couple of years after that, in 2005, Governor Baldacci held another bill after the Legislature had adjourned, and he vetoed It the following January. While there are a number of arguments on both sides of the issue of whether the 127th Legislature's June 30 adjournment prevented the Governor from returning the bills to their House(s) of origin, this Is clearly not a settled question of law. That said, the Constitution's plain language, the opinions of the Justices and the conduct of the previous Governor all strongly suggest that once the 127'" Legislature reconvenes for 3 consecutive days, the 3 day-procedure Is triggered. 6 ::>'J A-1 L < >t· l\11\lNJ· l )1-J·ICL Ol· Tiit (_jovrnNl'JH l ~-1 :\TJ·. HClUSl' STA'rl()]'l A!Jfa1s··1 A, !vlr\INf 0·1 ~ '_1 I -~)(l(l J July 10, 2015 Grant T. Pennoyer, Executive Director Legislative Council 115 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0115 Dear Mr. Pennoyer: I understand that the Revisor's Office has already chaptered a number of bills the Governor is holding because the Legislature's adjournment prevented his return of the bills to their House(s) of origin within the 10 day deadline. As a result of the Legislature's conduct, and as I am sure you know, the Governor disputes the present validity of these laws. On the other hand, of course, the Governor's opponents wish to rush through the procedural hurdles associated with implementation of the laws and declare them valid. Having the Revisor's Office completely ignore the Governor's position is not only overly partisan conduct on the part of the Revisor's Office, it is also unnecessary as the Governor intends to seek a legal solution to this matter. There is nothing in 3 M.R.S. §163-A that demands such Immediate action on the part of the Revisor. Regardless of whether we agree on which legal theory is more persuasive, surely we can agree that there is a great need for a reasoned and legal resolution. Accordingly, I am requesting that the Revisor's Office pause In Its zeal to effectuate these laws, allowing time for the dispute to be addressed. In addition, I suggest that at the very least, this matter should be voted on in the Legislative Council. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, 9· rx..-(A ~ cJ L ?7 {) Ctr;£~'?<. Cynl~a L. Montgomery Chief Legal Counsel 1 r"'~·'"'''-'"''''tmn:"" rrY u~rn~ C1\t1 ·111 EXHIBIT 11 GRANT T. PENNOYER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THS LEG!SLATIVE COUNCIL MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL July 10, 2015 Cynthia L. Montgomery Chief Legal Counsel Office of the Governor 1 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0001 Dear Ms. Montgomery: I have received your letter regarding the recent chaptering of bills for which the 10-day period for Governor's action had expired. The Reviser's Office was performing Its administrative function of chaptering laws, which had become law pursuant to the Constitution of Maine, according to the same procedure and tlmeframe that it always does. The only difference is that, In this instance, the office did not receive the originals back from the Governor's Office. The Reviser's Office did not ignore the Governor's position; in fact, despite their repeated attempts to get clarification regarding the original bill folders for the bills that had become Jaw pursuant to the Constitution, no one In the Governor's Office conveyed to them the Governor's position. After repeated Inquiries by the Revisor's Office, Scott Van Orman informed the Revisor that the bills were "not available,'' prompting the Revlsor to ask whether the bills had been misplaced. Following assurances that the bills were in the Governor's Office somewhere, the Reviser informed Scott Van Orman and Suzanne Brochu that "it was fine and that the office would simply chapter the laws without the original bill folders." You have requested that the Revisor's Office pause in its chaptering of these Jaws. Absent a legal opinion from an authoritative external legal source, such as an Opinion of the Justices or a written opinion of the Attorney General, which the office has used as guidance in the past, the Reviser's Office will continue to perform its administrative responsibilities in an absolutely nonpartisan manner. Sincerely, Grant T. Pennoyer Executive Director of the Legislative Council 115 STATE HOUSE STATION, AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0115 TELEPHONE 207-287-1615 FAX 207-287-1621 E-MAIL: grant.pennoyer@legislature.maine.gov STATE OF MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CLERK'S OFFICE 2 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0002 Robert B. Hunt Clerk of the House July 20, 2015 Governor Paul R. LePage 1 State House Station Augusta, ME 04330 Dear Governor LePage: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I received the 37 vetoed bill jackets your office delivered on July 16, 2015. However, because the bills had already become law and had been chaptered by the Revisor of Statutes, I delivered them to the Revisor's Office on the date they were received for official archiving. Respectfully submitted, Robert B. Hunt Clerk of the House EXHIBIT 12 Tel: 207-287-1400 E-Mail: Rob.Hunt@legislature.maine.gov Fax: 207-287-1456 Heather J.R. Priest Secretary of the Senate THE MAil\TE SENATE !27th Legislature 3 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333 July 20, 2015 The Honorable Paul R. LePage Governor, State of Maine Office of the Governor 1 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0001 Governor LePage: This letter serves to acknowledge receipt of legislative documents with veto messages by the Secretary of the Senate's Office on July 16, 2015. In light of the fact that all the documents had already been chaptered into law and were not properly before the body, I subsequently delivered them to the Revisor's Office. Secretary of the Senate S1a1e House (207) 287-1540 '' TTY (207) 287-1583 •r Fax (207) 287-1900 ' Toll Free 1-800-423-6900 Eniai!: Heather.Pries1@lef!islar11re.maine.eov * H'eb Site_· legisi.arvre.maine.gov/senate History of Vetoes During Temporary Adjournments (1973-2014) Year Legislature Session Convened Temporary Adjournment 2014 126th 2nd Jan. 8, Regular 2014 2013 !26th 2012 !25th !st Regular 2nd Regular Dec. 5, 2012 Jan. 4, 2012 I---- --1 ---------- 2011 !25th 2002 !20th 2001 119th April 18 - adjourned until May 1 (SP 757) June 27, 2013 - adjourned until July 9 (SP 626) April 14 - adjourned until May 15 (SP 686) Dates on which Governor Adjournment Sine Die Notes returned bills w/objections during temporary adjournment April 22 (3 bills), 23 (1 bill), May 1 (after considering 25 (2 bills), 28 (15 bills), 29 40 vetoes) (17 bills), 30 (2 bills) - total of 40 bills) June 28 (6 bills), July 2 (3 July 9 (after considering bills), and 8 (21 bills) 30 vetoes) April 14 (line item vetoes of April 18 - Speaker reported that Supp Budget bill), and April House would not convene to 20 (I bill) consider line item vetoes due to lack of consent of majority of members of both parties.- _______ ---- May 17 - adjourned "until the call of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, respectively, when there is a need to conduct business." (SP 689) 1st Regular 2nd Regular Dec. 1, 2010 Jan. 2, 2002 Dec. 2, 1st Regular 1998 May 25 (3 bills) and 29 (1 bill) June 16, 2011 - adjourned until June June 17 (3 bills), 20 (3 bills) 28 (HP 1188) and 23 (2 bills) April 9 - adjourned until April 24 (HP April 11 (2 bills), 17 ( 1 bill) 1737) May 31 (after considering 4 vetoes) June 28/29 (after considering 8 vetoes) April 24 (4:44 am on April 25) (after considering 3 vetoes) June 5, 1999 - adjourned until June 18 June 11 (2 bills), 14 ( 1 bill), June 18 (at 12:10 am on (SP 855) 15 (10 bills), 16 (7 bills) and June 19) (after 17 (2 bills) considering 22 vetoes) _,, -----~ ,,_,,,_ - --- Reconvened on May 31 Year Legislature Session Convened Temporary Adjournment 2000 119th 2nd Jan. 5, Regular 2000 1997 118th lst Special 1993 I 16th 1989 1988 Dates on which Governor Adjournment Sine Die Notes returned bills w/objections during temporary adjournment April 27 - House adjourned at 2:50 am May 8 (5 bills) May 12 at 3:31 am (after on April 28 "until the call of the considering 5 vetoes) Speaker of the House, when there is a need to conduct business, pursuant to Joint Order (SP I 092)" June I - adjourned "until the call of the June 2 (I bill), I 0 ( 1 bill) President of the Senate and the and 11 (1 bill) Speaker of the House pursuant to Joint Order (HP 1353) June 20 (after considering 3 vetoes) 1st Dec. 2, Regular 1992 July 1, 1993 - adjourned until July 14 "for the purpose of considering possible objections of the Governor" pursuant to Joint Order (SP 544) July 13 (2 bills) July 14 (after considering 2 vetoes) 114th Dec. 7, 1st Regular 1988 June 21, 1989 - adjourned until Thursday, June 29, 1989, at nine o'clock in the morning pursuant to Joint Order (SP 660) June 23 (1 bill), 27 (2 bills), July 1 (after considering Held 3-day session from June 29 to 28 (2 bills) and 29 (1 bill) vetoes) July I, 1989 113th 2nd Jan. 6, Regular 1988 April 21 - on motion of Representative Diamond of Bangor, adjourned until Wednesday, May 4, 1988, at ten o'clock in the morning pursuant to Joint Order (HP 1945) April 27 (2 bills), May 3 (4 bills) (one does not have a date on the communication entered in the record (LD 2501)) March 27, 1997 Reconvened on June 20 May 5 (after considering On April 21, the House and Senate vetoes) invited the Governor to address the bodies, though they reconvened in May to adjourn sine die. History of Vetoes During Temporary Adjournments (1973-2014) Year Legislature Session Convened Temporary Adjournment June 18, 1987 - on motion of Representative Wentwo1ih of Wells, Adjourned until Tuesday, June 30, 1987, at ten o'clock in the morning, pursuant to Joint Order (SP 654) . Dates on which Governor Adjournment Sine Die Notes returned bills w/objections during temporary adjournment June 19 (1 bill), June 29 (2 June 30, 1987 (after considering 4 vetoes) bills) and 30 (1 bill) 1987 113th Dec. 3, 1st Regular 1986 1987 113th 2nd Special Oct. 21, 1987 October 21 - the Legislature convened October 22 (2 bills) in Special Session and passed this Adjournment Order: The following Joint Order: (SP 694) ORDERED, the House concurring, that when the House and Senate adjourn, they adjourn to the call of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House when there is need to conduct legislative business, pursuant to Atiicle IV, Part 3, Section 12 of the Constitution. Came from the Senate, read and passed. Nov. 20 (after considering 2 vetoes) 1981 1lOth 1978 108th 1st Regular 2nd Regular Dec. 3, 1980 Jan. 4, 1978 June 12, 1981 - adjourned until June June 19 (I bill) 19 March 24 - adjourned until April 6 (SP April 5 (7 bills) (one is undated in the record (LD 770) 2139)) June 19, 1981 (after considering 1 veto) April 6 (after considering vetoes) On October 21, 1987, the Legislature convened in Special Session and adjourned at the call of the Speaker and the President on the same day. Reconvened on November 19. The Governor returned a veto message, dated October 22 (for LD 1895). It was considered on November 19 in the House. Year Legislature Session Convened Temporary Adjournment 1977 108th Jan. 5, 1st Regular 1977 1976 107th 1st Special Jan. 19, 1976 July 11 - adjourned until July 25 (HP 1840) Dates on which Governor Adjournment Sine Die Notes returned bills w/objections during temporary adjournment July 25 (after July 11 (1 bill), July 12 (4 bills), July 18 (1 bill), July considering vetoes) 19 (4 bills), July 20 (5 bills) and July 22 (6 bills) April 16 - adjourned until April 26 (SP April 22 (1 bill) 812) April 29 (after considering 1 veto)