Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 1
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 1, § 353 (2026)

Explanation of proposed amendments and statewide referenda

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
With the assistance of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General shall prepare a brief explanatory statement that must fairly describe the intent and content and what a "yes" vote favors and a "no" vote opposes for each direct initiative, bond issue, constitutional resolution or statewide referendum that may be presented to the people. The Office of Fiscal and Program Review shall prepare an estimate of the fiscal impact on state revenues, appropriations and allocations of each measure that may appear on the ballot, within the following time frames: for a direct initiative, within 15 business days after the applicant has given consent to the Secretary of State for the final language of the proposed law; and for a statewide referendum, bond issue or constitutional resolution, within 30 days after adjournment of the legislative session in which the measure was passed. The fiscal impact estimate must summarize the aggregate impact that the constitutional resolution, statewide referendum, direct initiative or bond issue will have on the General Fund, the Highway Fund, Other Special Revenue Funds and the amounts distributed by the State to local units of government.   [PL 2011, c. 342, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1973, c. 625, §3 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 534, §1 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 541, §A2 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 663, §1 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 837, §A1 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 316, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 695, Pt. A, §2 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 341, §1 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 462, Pt. D, §1 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 538, §1 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 342, §1 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: Wawenock, LLC v. Dep't of Transp., 2018 ME 83 (Me. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wawenock, LLC v. Dep't of Transp., 2018 ME 83 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “" 1 M.R.S. § 353 (2017). The Office of Fiscal and Program Review also must "prepare an estimate of the fiscal impact on state revenues, appropriations and allocations of each measure that may appear on the ballot.”
Opinion of the Justices, 460 A.2d 1341 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “The question submitted to the voters, the form of which is attached as “Appendix A” * hereto, was “[s]hall ‘AN ACT to Adjust Annually Individual Income Tax Laws to Eliminate Inflation-Induced Increases in Individual State Income Taxes,’ become law?” Pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. § 353…”
League of Women Voters v. Sec'y of State, 683 A.2d 769 (Me. 1996). “Additional evidence in support of our interpretation is found in the Attorney General’s explanatory statement that was attached to the referendum question pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. § 353 (1989). 10 That explana *774 tion, which was put before the electors who enacted the Term…”
League of Women Voters v. Diamond, 923 F. Supp. 266 (D. Me. 1996). “Title 1 M.R.S.A § 353 requires the Attorney General to prepare a brief explanatory statement which fairly describes the intent and content of each statewide referendum or proposed constitutional amendment.”
Portland Reg'l Chamber of Com. v. City of Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “8 The others are documents prepared in connection with citizen-initiated proposals for state legislation pursuant to 1 M.R.S. § 353: an explanatmy statement prepared by the Attorney General and estimates prepared by the Legislature's Office of Fiscal and Program Review.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.