Plaintiffs, fourteen residents of the Town of Fairfield, appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (Somerset County, Smith, J.). The court denied their request for a declaration that a municipal referendum overturning the town council's acceptance of a town way is invalid. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the acceptance of a town way is not subject to referendum, or alternatively, that defects in the procedure rendered the petitions and subsequent election invalid. Finding no error, we affirm.
The relevant facts may be summarized as follows: In 1989, the Fairfield town council accepted Williams Street extension as a town way, and plaintiff William Sturtevant conveyed the street to the town by a recorded quitclaim. Within thirty days, petitions were filed by residents of the town seeking to overturn the acceptance of the street. Although the validity of the petitions was challenged, the town council determined that the petitions were valid and called a special election to vote on the referendum. The election resulted in a vote rejecting the council's acceptance of the street. Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They now appeal from the unfavorable ruling obtained in the Superior Court.
Plaintiffs first argue that the action of the town council in accepting the town way is not subject to referendum. The referendum provision in the Fairfield town charter is set forth in section 701 and provides:
Plaintiffs contend that if the referendum procedure applies literally to "any action," it will produce absurd results. They argue that "actions" must be restricted to legislative enactments, or laws and ordinances governing the business of the Town of Fairfield, as distinguished from an order accepting the dedication of land for a town way. Although there are limits to the exercise of the right of referendum, we conclude the action in this case is subject to referendum.
In other jurisdictions, the power of referendum is usually defined as restricted to legislative measures and does not extend to executive or administrative action taken by a municipality. See 5 E. McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 16.55 (3d ed. 1989). Our law does not explicitly include such a distinction. In Maine, the constitutional grant of the power of referendum permits a municipality to "establish the direct initiative and people's veto for the electors of such city in regard to its municipal affairs ...." Me.Const., art. IV, pt. 3, § 21 (emphasis added).
Id. at 466-67, 199 A. at 622 (citations omitted). We held in Burkett that the referendum procedure could not be used to reject the city council's adoption of a general appropriation resolve, as such an action is both a state and local matter. "Where the manifest intention of the Constitution is that, in relation to cities, the referendum shall be limited to municipal affairs, that intention must prevail." Id. at 467, 199 A. at 622-23. See also LaFleur v. Frost, 146 Me. 270, 80 A.2d 407 (1951). Whether the analysis is premised on municipal versus state affairs or legislative versus administrative duties, the goal remains the same: identify those areas in which the municipality has been given the discretion to do as it wishes. In such areas, the action of the municipality's legislative body is subject to the referendum procedure. See McQuillin, supra.
The present case involves the acceptance of a town way. The legislative body of the town is given broad discretion to accept a dedication of land for local highway purposes. "A municipality may accept a dedication of property or interests therein by an affirmative vote of its legislative body." 23 M.R.S.A. § 3025 (1980). Because the legislature has committed the decision to accept a town way to the legislative discretion of a municipality, such an action is exclusively a municipal affair, and the right of referendum exists pursuant to the Maine Constitution and the municipal charter.
Plaintiffs next argue that the procedure for gathering the petitions was defective and the election was invalid. The referendum procedure for the Town of Fairfield is set forth in section 703 of the municipal charter:
Admittedly, the petitions filed with the municipal clerk do not comply with the requirements specified for statewide petitions. See Maine Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 20 and 21-A M.R.S.A. §§ 901-903 (Supp. 1990).
Because section 703 of the charter contains no provision governing the form and methods of preparation, circulation, and verification of the petitions, plaintiffs look to section 203, which states:
The "general law relating to municipalities" is contained in Title 30-A M.R.S.A.,
We have held that "cities are free to adopt machinery [for the referendum procedure] which appears best suited to their particular needs." Von Tiling v. City of Portland, 268 A.2d 888, 891 (1970). Accordingly, municipalities are free to impose different requirements than those governing statewide petitions. In reviewing referendum procedures, we ask:
Von Tiling, 268 A.2d at 891; LaFleur v. Frost, 146 Me. at 284, 80 A.2d at 414. Although the procedures are significantly less formal than those adopted for statewide elections, plaintiffs have demonstrated no constitutional invalidity.
The entry is:
Except as otherwise provided by this Title or by charter, the method of voting and the conduct of a municipal election are governed by Title 21-A.