An Augusta man who challenged the legality of Democratic leaders’ use of a procedural maneuver to pass a state budget last year is asking Maine’s high court to reconsider its decision to dismiss the lawsuit.
William Clardy, a Republican, filed a motion Tuesday with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in which he argued that the court erred in its evaluation of the actions taken by legislative leaders and his standing to bring the suit.
Matt Pollack, clerk of the court, said in an email Wednesday that the court received the filing and has not yet taken any action.
If the motion is granted, the court could issue a final ruling without reargument, restore the case to its calendar for reconsideration, or make another order as deemed appropriate.
Clardy, his organization Respect Maine, and two Republican lawmakers filed suit in the spring of 2023 after Democrats passed a state budget in a party-line vote, then temporarily adjourned the session so the spending plan could take effect in time for the start of the next fiscal year on July 1.
A budget passed with two-thirds support can take effect immediately after the Legislature adjourns, but one passed with less than two-thirds support takes effect after 90 days.
Gov. Janet Mills signed the budget and immediately called the Legislature back into a special session to finish its work on hundreds of bills and to decide what to do with hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus state revenue that wasn’t allocated in the budget.
The maneuver effectively allowed Democrats to pass a budget without any Republican support.
The plaintiffs argued that Mills acted unconstitutionally in calling a special session when there was no “extraordinary occasion,” as is required in the state constitution. They also accused Senate President Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, and House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross, D-Portland, of colluding with Mills to bypass the state constitution, pass the budget and reconvene lawmakers.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a decision by the Kennebec County Superior Court to dismiss the case, though on different grounds. The high court said the plaintiffs lacked standing and had not shown proof of suffering an injury sufficient for them to bring the case.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
We invite you to add your comments. We encourage a thoughtful exchange of ideas and information on this website. By joining the conversation, you are agreeing to our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is found on our FAQs. You can modify your screen name here.
Comments are managed by our staff during regular business hours Monday through Friday as well as limited hours on Saturday and Sunday. Comments held for moderation outside of those hours may take longer to approve.
Join the Conversation
Please sign into your Press Herald account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe. Questions? Please see our FAQs.